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 517304
To read all comments associated with this story, please click here.
It makes a certain amount of sense
by JoeBuck on Tue 8th May 2012 00:52 UTC
JoeBuck
Member since:
2006-01-11

IANAL, but I think this is what is going on:

In the American legal system, the jury is responsible for deciding factual matters while the judges interpret the law. However, judges are only supposed to rule on cases brought before them.

So the jury was basically asked "assuming APIs are copyrightable, was there copying"? They said yes. They were then told the applicable rules for "fair use" and asked if those applied. They said "we can't decide".

To convict Google, Oracle would need both the jury and the judges to fill in their parts.

Reply Score: 5