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 517327
To view parent comment, click here.
To read all comments associated with this story, please click here.
RE[2]: Sigh. Thom.
by smashIt on Tue 8th May 2012 14:12 UTC 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