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 517296
To view parent comment, click here.
To read all comments associated with this story, please click here.
RE[5]: Sigh. Thom.
by cfgr on Mon 7th May 2012 21:57 UTC in reply to "RE[4]: Sigh. Thom."
cfgr
Member since:
2009-07-18

Well, I'm not a lawyer but I'd assume it's a way of multitasking.

To have an actual violation, we need to determine:
(1) is API copyrightable?
(2) if API is copyrightable, does Google violate it?

Or put in logic:
(1) A is true?
(2) (A => B) is true?

The jury concluded that implication (2) is valid, but that only means something when A is true. So once it's ruled that API's are in fact copyrightable then Google violated it and a new jury decision will not be needed.

Or it may be some legal trick I'm not aware of, it just seemed the most logical explanation to me.

It would be an interesting scenario where software is not a derived work in one continent but is considered as one in another. "This software may not be exported to Cuba, Iran, Libya, North Korea, Sudan, Syria and the United States of America."

Reply Parent Score: 3

RE[6]: Sigh. Thom.
by terrakotta on Tue 8th May 2012 18:15 in reply to "RE[5]: Sigh. Thom."
terrakotta Member since:
2010-04-21

Why go over (2) if A is not valid,
That's like first executing the body and then looking at the if-statement to dismiss the work you put into the body if it's a 0. Quite ineffective if you ask me. Never got the whole common law thing anyway, I know it allows the system to be more nimble, and to adapt more easily to knew situations. It is also more error prone, and it puts power into peoples' hands that should not have them. A judge and jury are no politicians who should be making the law. The legal system provides for people that establish whether or not a law has been broken. Separation of power is what it's called.

Reply Parent Score: 2

RE[7]: Sigh. Thom.
by cfgr on Wed 9th May 2012 02:13 in reply to "RE[6]: Sigh. Thom."
cfgr Member since:
2009-07-18

Because the judge was hoping (2) would be proven false. Then he would not need to decide on (1) which is a much harder thing.

Why go over (2) if A is not valid,
That's like first executing the body and then looking at the if-statement to dismiss the work you put into the body if it's a 0. Quite ineffective if you ask me.

As another poster mentioned, this happens all the time. Most processors with large pipelines try to predict branches and execute the next instructions in one branch before the if-check is even finished. If it was the right branch, we just saved some time. If it was the wrong one, well just throw those temporary results away and start on the other branch. It beats doing nothing at all. This make sense because some branches are much more likely to occur than others (think while-loops).

Thus it's better to do something and hope it might be useful than doing nothing while waiting for some results. The jury had to make a few decisions anyway, might as well give them the extra question if that saves us some time later.

Edited 2012-05-09 02:15 UTC

Reply Parent Score: 2