4 ms·

It seems completely insane to have a jury of random people decide these kind of technical questions.

JamisonM 14y ago
The 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 ago
They 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 ago
  It'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 ago
    Programming 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.
    - rbanffy 14y ago
      In this specific case, it's hard to imagine an average layperson being able to grasp such concepts after a reasonable amount of instruction by experts and the judge. Let's use the Java interface construct as an example. It's expressed as code, but is it really just code? Isn't it really a spec other classes must implement in order to become valid Java code, expressed in code for the benefit of the compiler? I consider my own unit tests as part of the documentation of the systems I deliver. There is little question as to whether the doctests are documentation, but testing them makes them execute. What are they then? What if my code, during startup, reads UML files and compiles them to behavior that becomes part of the system during execution? And my analogy works both ways - the opinion of a dozen theoretical physicists on birdseeds is equally relevant.
      - rayiner 14y ago
        > In this specific case, it's hard to imagine an average layperson being able to grasp such concepts after a reasonable amount of instruction by experts and the judge. Let's use the Java interface construct as an example. It's expressed as code, but is it really just code? Isn't it really a spec other classes must implement in order to become valid Java code, expressed in code for the benefit of the compiler? 1) The jury doesn't decide whether Java interfaces are protectable code versus unprotectable specifications. That's a legal determination for a judge. The judge deals in these sorts of general or philosophical principles. The jury deals in specific facts. 2) Technical distinctions aren't necessarily legally operative distinctions. The law tends to be based on things that are within typical peoples' experience. 3) You have days of peoples' undivided attention to explain things to a jury. So in this example, the judge would be the one to decide whether Java interfaces, in principle, were protectable or not. The jury would decide things like the fact of whether Google copied Oracle's interfaces. Someone at Google might testify that they never saw Oracle's interfaces, and came up with them independently. The jury will decide whether they believe his story. They'll be shown code. They don't have to understand how it works to know whether the same variable names, etc, are being used.
eli 14y ago
Suggest an alternative?
- eco 14y ago
  They can ask me. I'd do it.
  - eli 14y ago
    In most places you can volunteer for jury duty.... go nuts! ('fraid you can't pick your cases though)
    - eco 14y ago
      My brother was actually on the Microsoft-Novell trial jury. Sounded both interesting and terrible. He really resented that the whole thing just ended up being a waste of time for him.
nerdfiles 14y ago
I believe one of the major social functions of the legal system is to disseminate the law. Random people don't read 100s of blogs a day. Random people don't track 100s of RSS feeds. Random people watch major historical events. I personally think it's good to subject randoms to social activities analogous to "code review." It's not a matter of "one" versus "many". The problem is ALWAYS: Code for 0, 1, or ∞. What we're witnessing here is an Optimistic Aristocratic Approach, which chooses "many". In our society, "many" is too primitive and vague of a concept. I imagine this is why less complex cultures correlate with linguistic markings which top off at "many," or that it's simply highly probable. In any event, Optimistic Aristocratic Approach (which assumes the lowest-common denominator in its decision procedure over its sample, not the "ignorant" or "non-technical"), to me, entails that the legal system is attempting to familiarize randoms with these problems, not only to set a precedent in the law, but to set a social template as to how these issues should be treated systematically in court rooms. It also gives us a gauge of how effective we are at communicating these problems to "laypeople." Of course, no society would want randoms if it could not assume randoms were competent; but no society would want randoms if it could not assume randoms were indeed random. "Randomness" is a feature of our legal system insofar as it is a fact of nature (mutation): we cannot respond to randomness blindly. Choosing our best, ignores randomness because it assumes we are knowers. Choosing one, like a previous poster has noted, involves a predictable historical trend in law. Choosing our WORST is insane. Choosing RANDOM is pragmatic, even if stupid. (I don't care to see this legal system or government last, but I believe all I've said can be taken without anarchistic sensibilities.) We should all bear in mind, perhaps, that this legal system is largely going to analogize these issues to industrial-products and scenarios. I believe the thrust of "no, no! not the randoms!" is contained in the Internet Declaration of Independence. Do you remember?: _Governments of the Industrial World, you weary giants of flesh and steel_, I come from Cyberspace, the new home of Mind. On behalf of the future, I ask you of the past to leave us alone. You are not welcome among us. You have no sovereignty where we gather. [my emphasis] I believe the point is not: "Don't trust commoners!" That's insipid and moronic. I believe that the general spirit is: "Don't trust commoners from the Industrial World to contribute meaningfully to our new set of values, whatever they may be!"

The 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 ago

They 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 ago
It'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 ago
  Programming 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.
  - rbanffy 14y ago
    In this specific case, it's hard to imagine an average layperson being able to grasp such concepts after a reasonable amount of instruction by experts and the judge. Let's use the Java interface construct as an example. It's expressed as code, but is it really just code? Isn't it really a spec other classes must implement in order to become valid Java code, expressed in code for the benefit of the compiler? I consider my own unit tests as part of the documentation of the systems I deliver. There is little question as to whether the doctests are documentation, but testing them makes them execute. What are they then? What if my code, during startup, reads UML files and compiles them to behavior that becomes part of the system during execution? And my analogy works both ways - the opinion of a dozen theoretical physicists on birdseeds is equally relevant.
    - rayiner 14y ago
      > In this specific case, it's hard to imagine an average layperson being able to grasp such concepts after a reasonable amount of instruction by experts and the judge. Let's use the Java interface construct as an example. It's expressed as code, but is it really just code? Isn't it really a spec other classes must implement in order to become valid Java code, expressed in code for the benefit of the compiler? 1) The jury doesn't decide whether Java interfaces are protectable code versus unprotectable specifications. That's a legal determination for a judge. The judge deals in these sorts of general or philosophical principles. The jury deals in specific facts. 2) Technical distinctions aren't necessarily legally operative distinctions. The law tends to be based on things that are within typical peoples' experience. 3) You have days of peoples' undivided attention to explain things to a jury. So in this example, the judge would be the one to decide whether Java interfaces, in principle, were protectable or not. The jury would decide things like the fact of whether Google copied Oracle's interfaces. Someone at Google might testify that they never saw Oracle's interfaces, and came up with them independently. The jury will decide whether they believe his story. They'll be shown code. They don't have to understand how it works to know whether the same variable names, etc, are being used.

eli 14y ago

Suggest an alternative?

eco 14y ago
They can ask me. I'd do it.
- eli 14y ago
  In most places you can volunteer for jury duty.... go nuts! ('fraid you can't pick your cases though)
  - eco 14y ago
    My brother was actually on the Microsoft-Novell trial jury. Sounded both interesting and terrible. He really resented that the whole thing just ended up being a waste of time for him.

nerdfiles 14y ago

I believe one of the major social functions of the legal system is to disseminate the law. Random people don't read 100s of blogs a day. Random people don't track 100s of RSS feeds. Random people watch major historical events. I personally think it's good to subject randoms to social activities analogous to "code review." It's not a matter of "one" versus "many". The problem is ALWAYS: Code for 0, 1, or ∞. What we're witnessing here is an Optimistic Aristocratic Approach, which chooses "many". In our society, "many" is too primitive and vague of a concept. I imagine this is why less complex cultures correlate with linguistic markings which top off at "many," or that it's simply highly probable. In any event, Optimistic Aristocratic Approach (which assumes the lowest-common denominator in its decision procedure over its sample, not the "ignorant" or "non-technical"), to me, entails that the legal system is attempting to familiarize randoms with these problems, not only to set a precedent in the law, but to set a social template as to how these issues should be treated systematically in court rooms. It also gives us a gauge of how effective we are at communicating these problems to "laypeople." Of course, no society would want randoms if it could not assume randoms were competent; but no society would want randoms if it could not assume randoms were indeed random. "Randomness" is a feature of our legal system insofar as it is a fact of nature (mutation): we cannot respond to randomness blindly. Choosing our best, ignores randomness because it assumes we are knowers. Choosing one, like a previous poster has noted, involves a predictable historical trend in law. Choosing our WORST is insane. Choosing RANDOM is pragmatic, even if stupid. (I don't care to see this legal system or government last, but I believe all I've said can be taken without anarchistic sensibilities.) We should all bear in mind, perhaps, that this legal system is largely going to analogize these issues to industrial-products and scenarios. I believe the thrust of "no, no! not the randoms!" is contained in the Internet Declaration of Independence. Do you remember?: _Governments of the Industrial World, you weary giants of flesh and steel_, I come from Cyberspace, the new home of Mind. On behalf of the future, I ask you of the past to leave us alone. You are not welcome among us. You have no sovereignty where we gather. [my emphasis] I believe the point is not: "Don't trust commoners!" That's insipid and moronic. I believe that the general spirit is: "Don't trust commoners from the Industrial World to contribute meaningfully to our new set of values, whatever they may be!"