Linked by Thom Holwerda on Mon 7th May 2012 20:09 UTC
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?
RE[2]: Sigh. Thom.
by Richard Dale on Tue 8th May 2012 12:36 UTC in reply to "RE: Sigh. Thom."

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'?