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 517308
To view parent comment, click here.
To read all comments associated with this story, please click here.
RE[3]: Sigh. Thom.
by tanishaj on Tue 8th May 2012 01:37 UTC in reply to "RE[2]: Sigh. Thom."
tanishaj
Member since:
2010-12-22

Thinking about this... I know exactly why this is so idiotic.

If not even a judge knows if APIs are copyrightable or not, how should Google have known?


The world changes every day creating exciting new ways to bring harm to others. If everything had to be explicitly pre-codified, there would be a lot of unaddressed injustice in the world.

Most legal systems were designed to evolve. If somebody acts in an "unreasonable" way or performs an action that signicantly works against the common good then they can be judged to have acted illegally.

The US system strives to avoid creating new laws unless they are both a natural extension to precedent and necessary to support a verdict of infringement by a jury.

Reply Parent Score: 3