3 ms·

Indeed, but that was not the question at hand: "when a judge tells the jury to assume something, is he implying there is a good chance that that is how he would

by kbolino 15y ago

Indeed, but that was not the question at hand: "when a judge tells the jury to assume something, is he implying there is a good chance that that is how he would judge the case?"

josefonseca 15y ago
Exactly, that is why I asked. I guess by your reasoning, then yes, he is implying that, otherwise the implication is always true and there's no logic to assuming a false P. Thus: I fear for the worst. API's may be copyrightable according to this ruling. I assume Google's teams are all over this right this minute.
- sanxiyn 15y ago
  No, he is not implying that. P = APICopyrightable Q = APICopied # infringingly Trial is trying to evaluate "P and Q". Judge does not want to evaluate "P" (lazy evaluation?), so he rewrote expression to "Q and P" hoping to short-circuit.
- kbolino 15y ago
  >>> I guess by your reasoning, then yes, he is implying that, otherwise the implication is always true and there's no logic to assuming a false P. There are two separate questions being asked here: 1. Is P true? 2. If P is true, does Q follow? The jury is assessing question (2) while the judge will later assess question (1). Question (2) is a question of guilt (if this were the law, did Google violate it?) and question (1) is a question of law (is this actually the law?). To answer (2), the jury must assume P then evaluate the consequence on Q; that is simply the manner of establishing the validity of a material implication. As you note, if the jury did not assume P, then they would have nothing to do. However, that the judge instructed the jury as such does not indicate any bias on his part; he was simply providing instructions to simplify the procedure of logical reasoning to a group of 12 laypeople. I'm assuming that most of them aren't trained mathematicians, logicians, lawyers, or philosophers. To put it succintly: the answer to your original question is "No."

by kbolino 15y ago

Indeed, but that was not the question at hand: "when a judge tells the jury to assume something, is he implying there is a good chance that that is how he would judge the case?"

josefonseca 15y ago

Exactly, that is why I asked. I guess by your reasoning, then yes, he is implying that, otherwise the implication is always true and there's no logic to assuming a false P. Thus: I fear for the worst. API's may be copyrightable according to this ruling. I assume Google's teams are all over this right this minute.

sanxiyn 15y ago
No, he is not implying that. P = APICopyrightable Q = APICopied # infringingly Trial is trying to evaluate "P and Q". Judge does not want to evaluate "P" (lazy evaluation?), so he rewrote expression to "Q and P" hoping to short-circuit.
kbolino 15y ago
>>> I guess by your reasoning, then yes, he is implying that, otherwise the implication is always true and there's no logic to assuming a false P. There are two separate questions being asked here: 1. Is P true? 2. If P is true, does Q follow? The jury is assessing question (2) while the judge will later assess question (1). Question (2) is a question of guilt (if this were the law, did Google violate it?) and question (1) is a question of law (is this actually the law?). To answer (2), the jury must assume P then evaluate the consequence on Q; that is simply the manner of establishing the validity of a material implication. As you note, if the jury did not assume P, then they would have nothing to do. However, that the judge instructed the jury as such does not indicate any bias on his part; he was simply providing instructions to simplify the procedure of logical reasoning to a group of 12 laypeople. I'm assuming that most of them aren't trained mathematicians, logicians, lawyers, or philosophers. To put it succintly: the answer to your original question is "No."