7 ms·
Jury in Oracle v. Google has reached a verdict on all questions but one
- 0x006A 14y agoTime to watch 12 Angry Men while they discuss question number 4
- redthrowaway 14y agoWatching a movie about a lone juror changing everyone's mind on what was supposed to be a slam-dunk case doesn't seem like good karma at the moment.
- mauriciob 14y agoFrom the comments: The form says only to answer 4 if they answered YES to 1A, Google _has_ infringed the SSO Having a Jury with no technical knowledge would obviously lead to this.
- gte910h 14y agoWhy do you assume the Jury has no technical knowledge? Lawyers often seek engineers and technical minded people in voir dire for technical cases. Not subject matter experts, but a programmer or mechanical engineer has a high chance of being sought after by both sides.
- lawdawg 14y agoyou obviously didn't follow along during jury selection. Anyone with any software/engineering background was excused from the jury. The current jury has no technical knowledge whatsoever.
- gte910h 14y agoWhere did you see this? No, I didn't see that.
- dpifke 14y agoA description of the selection process (by someone who was in the courtroom when the jury was selected) can be found here: http://www.groklaw.net/article.php?story=20120416085550303#Update_6 http://www.groklaw.net/article.php?story=20120416085550303#U... The judge specifically asked if anyone had software design experience; the two people who raised their hands were excused. He later asked, "there are geeky types of people and people who are not into technology. If you are on a geeky end, could you raise your hand?" Noone raised their hand.
- coopdog 14y agoWhy on earth would he want non-geeks.. I understand there could be a bias, but on the other hand these people are making interpretations of the law that could have very large consequences for a long time. Self described non-geeks are going to have very little knowledge and potentially little care of those consequences The judge should have filtered for bias in other ways
- 0xABADC0DA 14y agoHow so? Any jury, technical or not, should find 1A for Oracle. "Has Oracle proven that Google has infringed the overall structure, sequence and organization of copyrighted works?" As far as I can tell nobody disputes that Google lifted the Java API's structure, sequence, and organization from Sun, and the judge told them to consider SSO copyrightable. Most programmers think it's ok to rip off an API because otherwise the world will burn, or something, but 1A is asking what Google did not whether it was illegal. My bet is the jury is held up on the fair use, either for implementation (1B) or documentation (2B). These are vague questions that can easily go either way. My bet is that they find 1B for Google (implementing the API is ok) but find 2B for Oracle (reprinting the API SSO is not ok). You have to implement the API to make it compatible, but you don't have to republish the API.
- rbanffy 14y agoWhat is "copyrighted works" in the question and can an API be copyrighted?
- coopdog 14y agoAnd do they still 'infringe' if it's classed as fair use?
- taligent 14y agoI don't think the world would burn if APIs were copyrighted. There are 'fair use' provisions and most companies would grant carte blanche to people to provide new implementations. I am actually struggling to think of an example other than Java.
- tikhonj 14y agoSo it would change nothing. In which case, why have them copyrightable at all? If companies aren't going to take advantage of it anyhow, it seems additionally pointless. Fundamentally, the main reason to copyright something is to restrict others' use of it. Letting companies restrict their APIs' use would be unfortunate, so if it there is really no effect either way they should not be copyrightable.
- pan69 14y agoHaving a Jury would obviously lead to this. Not meaning to offend anyone but; to me a jury system is the most backward way of justice. Simply grab a random group of people of the street to essentially make life impacting decisions based on the theatrical performance of a lawyer. It's like saying; Hey guys, we're short on brain surgeons, we're going to introduce brain surgeon duty. Everyone can cut meat, right?
- rbanffy 14y agoJurors work on some issues - whether A killed B - but applying a non-technical jury to something as far from common daily experience of most people is, to say the least, dangerous.
- busyant 14y agoI know several expert witnesses who agree. They say the jury never understands their testimony, and they just side with whoever is more charismatic. Several experts have told me this in various forms.
- brudgers 14y ago>"they just side with whoever is more charismatic" Same might be said about technical people when it comes to Google and Oracle.
- rbanffy 14y agoAnd, apparently, not every technical person agrees on which site is more charismatic.
- jerf 14y agoI can't speak for everyone, but for me, flip the names on the case and I'll take the same side on the issues as I do now. What Oracle's argument has pivoted into is catastrophic if they win with it. It makes our patent mess look pedestrian. It's so catastrophic that I don't think there's any chance of it actually staying in their favor, even if it takes direct legislative action, but ye gods will it cause an epic, industry-stalling mess in the meantime.
- Natsu 14y agoThey were ordered to consider SSO copyrightable here. They may feel that they have little choice in the matter.
- dminor 14y agoYes - for those not following the trial, the judge has told the jury that SSO are copyrightable, and if the jury finds against Google, then the judge will decide whether or not SSO actually is copyrightable. So he may render their decision moot. Basically he's giving the jury a chance to render a narrower verdict rather than answer the broader SSO question outright.
- lomegor 14y agoBut we do not know if they answered 4. Well, we do know that it's not the one where the impasse occurred, but that doesn't mean they answered it.
- raverbashing 14y agoAccording to Groklaw the jury has not indicated an issue with question 4, but rather with one of the 3 first Their (groklaw) quote is: "Judge Alsup tells them they don't have to reach agreement on question 4. That's just advice for him, because he has to decide that in the end. No, they tell him they are at an impasse on one of the first three questions on the form."
- lawdawg 14y agoapparently it is not question #4, which leads to a few possibilities: 1. Unanimous on question 1, and therefore question 4 as well. 2. question 1 is the one they are still debating, and therefore haven't even considered #4. Regardless, I don't think you can say whether this is good or bad for Google/Oracle either way. Yes, if they were stuck on #4, it would be bad for Oracle, but I can see them already deciding Yes to #1 and No to #4, and can't decide on #2 or #3.
- tubbo 14y agoGreat, but which questions are they sure on? Title should have just been "Wait until Monday to find out Google v. Oracle verdict"
- ShardPhoenix 14y agoIt seems completely insane to have a jury of random people decide these kind of technical questions.
- JamisonM 14y agoThe only thing more insane would be having one or a few persons with clear history of positions on an issue decide these kinds of questions. That is what you end up with if you use "experts" -- people with some sort of vested interest in a position that really can't possibly be impartial.
- rayiner 14y agoThey give the jury very detailed guidance, in layman's terms, for each question. The jury is not being asked to use any technical expertise--they're being asked to judge the credibility of the experts who have presented each side's evidence.
- rbanffy 14y agoIt's like asking a dozen parakeets which of the two nuclear physicist in the room is right about string theory. I fail to see how their opinion can be relevant.
- rayiner 14y agoProgramming isn't nuclear physics and juries aren't parakeets. And you're not asking juries broad questions like "who is right about string theory?" you're asking them very pointed questions like "did X present sufficient evidence to show that Y is true?" Even in a technical trial, you're not asking the jury technical questions like whether some code implements quick-sort or bubble sort. The law by and large doesn't deal in those sorts of questions and as a result those questions don't get posed to the jury. Look at the questions posted: http://www.groklaw.net/article.php?story=20120504153813681 http://www.groklaw.net/article.php?story=20120504153813681 "B. Has Google proven that its use of Oracle’s Java documentation constituted “fair use”?" The judge will explain in detail what "fair use" means according to the law. The factors of fair use are something like this: 1) the purpose and character of the use, including whether such use is of a commercial nature or is for nonprofit educational purposes; 2) the nature of the copyrighted work; 3) the amount and substantiality of the portion used in relation to the copyrighted work as a whole; and 4) the effect of the use upon the potential market for or value of the copyrighted work. An average person can evaluate whether Google's use of Oracle's documentation was commercial or educational. They can be made to understand the difference between documentation and actual code that makes a product work. They can be made to understand the difference between a few lines of code and a program containing millions of lines. They can hear evidence from experts about the potential impact of the use and decide who they find more credible. It's not like on TV where there is a "guilty/non-guilty" verdict. The juries are asked very specific things that are expected to be within the range of comprehension of an ordinary person.
- lucian303 14y ago@ShardPhoenix It IS completely insane to have a jury, a group of people specifically chosen because of their below-average intelligence and lack of technical knowledge, decide any kind of technical questions, especially this. Sad place we inhabit in this universe indeed ...
- iamgopal 14y agoso who will likely to win ?