10 ms·

From 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 wou

From 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 ago
Why 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 ago
  you 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 ago
    Where did you see this? No, I didn't see that.
    - dpifke 14y ago
      A 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 ago
        Why 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 ago
How 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 ago
  What is "copyrighted works" in the question and can an API be copyrighted?
  - coopdog 14y ago
    And do they still 'infringe' if it's classed as fair use?
- taligent 14y ago
  I 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 ago
    So 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 ago
Having 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 ago
  Jurors 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 ago
    I 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 ago
        And, apparently, not every technical person agrees on which site is more charismatic.
      - jerf 14y ago
        I 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 ago
They were ordered to consider SSO copyrightable here. They may feel that they have little choice in the matter.
- dminor 14y ago
  Yes - 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 ago
But 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 ago
According 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."

From 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 ago

Why 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 ago
you 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 ago
  Where did you see this? No, I didn't see that.
  - dpifke 14y ago
    A 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 ago
      Why 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 ago

How 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 ago
What is "copyrighted works" in the question and can an API be copyrighted?
- coopdog 14y ago
  And do they still 'infringe' if it's classed as fair use?
taligent 14y ago
I 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 ago
  So 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 ago

Having 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 ago
Jurors 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 ago
  I 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 ago
      And, apparently, not every technical person agrees on which site is more charismatic.
    - jerf 14y ago
      I 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 ago

They were ordered to consider SSO copyrightable here. They may feel that they have little choice in the matter.

dminor 14y ago
Yes - 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 ago

But 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 ago

According 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."