Linked by Thom Holwerda on Wed 16th May 2012 07:35 UTC
Legal A bit of a fascinating little surprise in the Oracle vs. Google proceedings yesterday. As it turns out, judge Alsup... Has done, and still does, a lot of programming, and hence, he knows just how silly the whole rangeChek issue is. Addressing Oracle's lawyer, Alsup notes: "I couldn't have told you the first thing about Java before this problem. I have done, and still do, a significant amount of programming in other languages. I've written blocks of code like rangeCheck a hundred times before. I could do it, you could do it. The idea that someone would copy that when they could do it themselves just as fast, it was an accident. There's no way you could say that was speeding them along to the marketplace. You're one of the best lawyers in America, how could you even make that kind of argument?" Ouch.
Thread beginning with comment 518359
To view parent comment, click here.
To read all comments associated with this story, please click here.
RE[2]: Comment by MOS6510
by M.Onty on Wed 16th May 2012 12:07 UTC in reply to "RE: Comment by MOS6510"
M.Onty
Member since:
2009-10-23

... asking a jury to assume something is illegal is insane. But no, this changes nothing about that.


For the record, as it was made clear by various people in the original comments thread, he asked the jury to temporarily assume something is illegal so they could establish what to do if it were. The illegality was to be established seperately. It could be called parellel processing, it could be called efficiency, it is not insane.

On topic; it is indeed a pleasant suprise to see some common sense on software issues from a judge.

Reply Parent Score: 4

RE[3]: Comment by MOS6510
by Thom_Holwerda on Wed 16th May 2012 12:13 in reply to "RE[2]: Comment by MOS6510"
Thom_Holwerda Member since:
2005-06-29

The illegality was to be established seperately. It could be called parellel processing, it could be called efficiency, it is not insane.


And as I and several other also explained, from the perspective of a country without common law, that IS insane.

Reply Parent Score: 2

RE[4]: Comment by MOS6510
by ephracis on Wed 16th May 2012 12:33 in reply to "RE[3]: Comment by MOS6510"
ephracis Member since:
2007-09-23

I find that argument a little weird. It's like saying that constructing houses using ice sounds insane from the perspective of a person living in Africa.

You have to consider the context. I am from a country without common law, but as I consider the fact that Judge Alsup is from a country which do have it, his shortcut (or attempt at it) sounds very reasonable. I can't see that I wouldn't have done the same thing.

Again, if I considered the context.

Judge Alsup would be insane if he did what he did in a country without common law. I can agree to that.

Reply Parent Score: 2

RE[4]: Comment by MOS6510
by M.Onty on Wed 16th May 2012 14:15 in reply to "RE[3]: Comment by MOS6510"
M.Onty Member since:
2009-10-23

OK, I can see some people, including yourself, might justifiably think common law is odd. However, within that oddity, what he did made a sort of sense.

Reply Parent Score: 1

RE[3]: Comment by MOS6510
by s-peter on Wed 16th May 2012 12:57 in reply to "RE[2]: Comment by MOS6510"
s-peter Member since:
2006-01-29

It could be called parellel processing, it could be called efficiency, it is not insane.


I don't know much about the legal aspects, but "speculative execution" [1] (in branch prediction) seems a more appropriate (or more specific) analogy. I think parallel processing is most commonly used to refer to doing two or more "useful" things at the same time, whereas in this case (as with speculative execution) ultimately it is either legal or illegal, so there is a chance that considering it in advance will end up not bringing any benefit. So even though strictly speaking it can be considered parallel processing, calling it so will likely give the wrong impression of trying to "solve two cases" (in different universes) at the same time to some readers.

Heck, given today's news, I wouldn't be surprised if it turned out that the judge was just doing it to show off his knowledge of computing concepts. ;)

[1] http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Speculative_execution

Reply Parent Score: 5

RE[4]: Comment by MOS6510
by M.Onty on Wed 16th May 2012 14:13 in reply to "RE[3]: Comment by MOS6510"
M.Onty Member since:
2009-10-23

You win!

Reply Parent Score: 2

RE[3]: Comment by MOS6510
by zima on Wed 23rd May 2012 23:50 in reply to "RE[2]: Comment by MOS6510"
zima Member since:
2005-07-06

he asked the jury to temporarily assume something is illegal so they could establish what to do if it were. The illegality was to be established seperately. It could be called parellel processing, it could be called efficiency, it is not insane.

More like inefficiency. People are taken from their usual activities (typically / ideally contributing to society), gathered and provided for at some place, and asked to focus their efforts on contemplating something ...conclusions of which, they are basically explicitly told, might very well be irrelevant.

First establish the dilemma about legality, then (if required) gather the jury - that would be efficient (especially since this will come back to haunt us, the question about legality will have to be established down the road, anyway)

Parallel processing doesn't automatically bring more efficiency - just as impregnating 9 women doesn't give a child in a month.

Reply Parent Score: 2