Linked by Thom Holwerda on Mon 7th May 2012 20:09 UTC
Legal There's some movement in the Oracle-Google lawsuit today, but it's rather difficult to determine just what kind of movement. The jury was told by the judge Alsup to assume APIs are copyrightable - something Alsup still has to determine later during trial - and with that in mind, the judge ruled Google violated Oracle's copyright on Java. However, the jury did not come to an agreement on a rather crucial question: whether or not it was fair use. All in all, a rather meaningless verdict at this point, since it's incomplete. Also, what kind of nonsense is it for a judge to tell a jury to assume something is illegal? Am I the only one who thinks that's just complete insanity?
Permalink for comment 517368
To read all comments associated with this story, please click here.
RE[4]: Sigh. Thom.
by AdamW on Tue 8th May 2012 21:28 UTC in reply to "RE[3]: Sigh. Thom."
Member since:

I think there's a kind of 'lag' effect. I'm more likely to comment on big controversial stories, but at the same time, I'm thinking 'man, I'm wasting time and effort on this'. And eventually I'll just cancel my subscription. Every so often I go through my feeds and do that. So the effect is kinda delayed, which makes it less obvious.

I'm less likely, actually, to comment an interesting story that teaches me something new than I am on an inaccurate story about something I already understand. After all, I have nothing useful to contribute on the first; but I do on the second. But I'm more likely to keep reading a site that posts the first than I am a site that posts the second. So I don't think 'number of comments' is a reliable proxy metric for 'value of site to readers', necessarily.

Reply Parent Score: 2