4 ms·

Just saw this tweet from a journalist: Dan Levine ‏@FedcourtJunkie: We all just interviewed juror, who said jury was split 9-3 for google on copyright fair us

by parfe 14y ago

Just saw this tweet from a journalist: Dan Levine ‏@FedcourtJunkie: We all just interviewed juror, who said jury was split 9-3 for google on copyright fair use. Um, wow. https://twitter.com/FedcourtJunkie/status/205370887078285313 https://twitter.com/FedcourtJunkie/status/205370887078285313

nknight 14y ago
"Wow" is right. There's also this interesting gem right after: https://twitter.com/FedcourtJunkie/status/205371711233851392 https://twitter.com/FedcourtJunkie/status/205371711233851392 > Juror said it was his opinion that more tech savvy jurors were less likely to go for limits on openness. Ie they were pro google This really says it all. Ultimately Oracle can only win if the jury is borderline luddite.
- taligent 14y ago
  Being non tech savvy does not make you a luddite.
  - wtallis 14y ago
    No, but it's getting pretty hard to argue that a randomly selected jury of Northern California citizens should be completely devoid of smartphone owners.
- alanh 14y ago
  Why is a 9-3 split particularly surprising?
  - nknight 14y ago
    Frankly, I didn't have much confidence in this jury. It was stacked to avoid techies, its findings on other copyright issues (e.g. rangecheck) didn't instill much confidence in me, and some of the questions that were emerging made me question their ability to understand complex issues and distinguish between basically being ordered to find infringement, and being asked to determine if it was really infringement. If you'd asked me what the count was likely to be, I probably would have told you something like 10-2 for Oracle.
fpgeek 14y ago
It's worse than that. At one point the fair use vote was 11-1 in favor of Google until the holdout persuaded two other jurors [1]. As you might guess, that same juror was the one that had to be persuaded to reach a unanimous patent verdict. [1] http://www.law.com/jsp/ca/PubArticleCA.jsp?id=1202555835757&Jury_Sides_With_Google_on_Oracles_Patent_Claims http://www.law.com/jsp/ca/PubArticleCA.jsp?id=1202555835757&...

by parfe 14y ago

nknight 14y ago

"Wow" is right. There's also this interesting gem right after: https://twitter.com/FedcourtJunkie/status/205371711233851392 https://twitter.com/FedcourtJunkie/status/205371711233851392 > Juror said it was his opinion that more tech savvy jurors were less likely to go for limits on openness. Ie they were pro google This really says it all. Ultimately Oracle can only win if the jury is borderline luddite.

taligent 14y ago
Being non tech savvy does not make you a luddite.
- wtallis 14y ago
  No, but it's getting pretty hard to argue that a randomly selected jury of Northern California citizens should be completely devoid of smartphone owners.
alanh 14y ago
Why is a 9-3 split particularly surprising?
- nknight 14y ago
  Frankly, I didn't have much confidence in this jury. It was stacked to avoid techies, its findings on other copyright issues (e.g. rangecheck) didn't instill much confidence in me, and some of the questions that were emerging made me question their ability to understand complex issues and distinguish between basically being ordered to find infringement, and being asked to determine if it was really infringement. If you'd asked me what the count was likely to be, I probably would have told you something like 10-2 for Oracle.

fpgeek 14y ago

It's worse than that. At one point the fair use vote was 11-1 in favor of Google until the holdout persuaded two other jurors [1]. As you might guess, that same juror was the one that had to be persuaded to reach a unanimous patent verdict. [1] http://www.law.com/jsp/ca/PubArticleCA.jsp?id=1202555835757&Jury_Sides_With_Google_on_Oracles_Patent_Claims http://www.law.com/jsp/ca/PubArticleCA.jsp?id=1202555835757&...