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?
Thread beginning with comment 517295
To view parent comment, click here.
To read all comments associated with this story, please click here.
RE: Sigh. Thom.
by Doc Pain on Mon 7th May 2012 21:36 UTC in reply to "Sigh. Thom."
Doc Pain
Member since:
2006-10-08

So the judge asked the jury to answer the question of fact, and will himself answer the question of law. That's exactly how the system is supposed to work. It's not insane at all.


I don't think you're correct with this conclusion. Every programmer knows "if - then - else" statements, conditionals. They consist of a condition and a conclusion. In this particular case (if I understood it correctly!), the condition is an assumption, a possibility, a definition, or a theory. There is no evidence (yet) that this condition is true.

"If the moon consists of green cheese, would Google have infringed that copyright?"

The conclusion (as we don't know if the condition is true or not) may be even useless. See the rules for implications, which are the logical equivalent of a conditional for "condition x conclusion = truth of statement":

true x true = true
true x false = false
false x true = true
false x false = true

How does logic match in the field of law? Can argumenting on a "what if" basis be applied here? How does discussing possibilities (and evaluating them by the jury, with the judge setting up the preconditions) affect the legal process?

Reply Parent Score: 3

RE[2]: Sigh. Thom.
by looncraz on Tue 8th May 2012 00:28 in reply to "RE: Sigh. Thom."
looncraz Member since:
2005-07-24

Not familiar with out-of-order execution and branch prediction are we?

It works something like this:

The code:

law = Law(API | COPYRIGHTABLE);

if (law.IsIllegal(google->DoocumentedUseCase()))
jury->RenderVerdict();


We know that the if statement can only have two possible outcomes: true or false. Further, we know that if the answer if false, the jury->RenderVerdict() is unneeded.

We find no basis in which we should assume false, so we assume true until we can calculate law.IsIllegal()'s return value and so we throw jury->RenderVerdict() into the pipeline. Now, should we get around to a false result from law.IsIllegal() we can cancel the execution of jury->RenderVerdict() and also completely free all related branches and predictions. Now, if jury->RenderVerdict() returns before we have completed law.IsIllegal(), we need only to cache the result and further execution in regards to jury can occur.

This makes things much faster.

Hope that makes sense...

--The loon

Reply Parent Score: 3

RE[3]: Sigh. Thom.
by 1c3d0g on Tue 8th May 2012 02:50 in reply to "RE[2]: Sigh. Thom."
1c3d0g Member since:
2005-07-06

LMAO at your use of programming logic to explain the situation. I would love to see how a judge (or anyone familiar with the justice system) would react on seeing that!

Reply Parent Score: 5

RE[3]: Sigh. Thom.
by Doc Pain on Tue 8th May 2012 10:34 in reply to "RE[2]: Sigh. Thom."
Doc Pain Member since:
2006-10-08

Not familiar with out-of-order execution and branch prediction are we?


Oh, some legal systems really are out of order, sometimes there even should be an execution, and predicting how branches would behave means entering the magical realm of dreaming fairies and wonder bunnies. This means: You cannot beat law with logic, because it's often free of any common sense, just like my comment. :-)

Reply Parent Score: 3

RE[2]: Sigh. Thom.
by Richard Dale on Tue 8th May 2012 12:36 in reply to "RE: Sigh. Thom."
Richard Dale Member since:
2005-07-22

"So the judge asked the jury to answer the question of fact, and will himself answer the question of law. That's exactly how the system is supposed to work. It's not insane at all.


I don't think you're correct with this conclusion. Every programmer knows "if - then - else" statements, conditionals. They consist of a condition and a conclusion. In this particular case (if I understood it correctly!), the condition is an assumption, a possibility, a definition, or a theory. There is no evidence (yet) that this condition is true.

"If the moon consists of green cheese, would Google have infringed that copyright?"

The conclusion (as we don't know if the condition is true or not) may be even useless. See the rules for implications, which are the logical equivalent of a conditional for "condition x conclusion = truth of statement":

true x true = true
true x false = false
false x true = true
false x false = true

How does logic match in the field of law? Can argumenting on a "what if" basis be applied here? How does discussing possibilities (and evaluating them by the jury, with the judge setting up the preconditions) affect the legal process?
"

I hope you've got a license to use predicate logic from Mr Boole - it looks like you might be infringing to me. Can't you use something more original the 'true' and 'false'?

Reply Parent Score: 2

RE[2]: Sigh. Thom.
by smashIt on Tue 8th May 2012 14:12 in reply to "RE: Sigh. Thom."
smashIt Member since:
2005-07-06

true x true = true
true x false = false
false x true = true
false x false = true


shouldn't it be

true x true = true
true x false = false
false x true = false
false x false = true

?

Reply Parent Score: 1

RE[3]: Sigh. Thom.
by Doc Pain on Wed 9th May 2012 00:55 in reply to "RE[2]: Sigh. Thom."
Doc Pain Member since:
2006-10-08

"true x true = true
true x false = false
false x true = true
false x false = true


shouldn't it be

true x true = true
true x false = false
false x true = false
false x false = true

?
"

No, for the implication, true x false = false is correct. Read: "from something true, a false statement cannot emerge"; and false x true = true is also correct, because "from something false, a true statement can emerge". That's the implication, it's not the "logical and" or "logical xor" (in which case your commented statement would be correct). Implication means "if A then B" (formal: "A implies B"), and the whole construct (not only A and B) can have a truth value. More formal: A -> B <=> -A v B (read "A implies B when not A or B"), and you can put in true and false for A and B and check for all 4 cases.

However, law isn't logic. From something plain stupid, a ridiculous ruling can always emerge. :-)

Reply Parent Score: 3