Jury in Oracle v. Google finds in Google's favour

Post by technofiend » Thu, May 26, 2016, 9:03 PM UTC

jdmichal wrote: post #54

technofiend wrote: post #22

Earlier quoted context omitted.

>Oracle's strategy going forward, both in post-trial motions and in any subsequent appeal, will be based on arguing that no jury could have applied these factors to the undisputed facts of the case and concluded that the fair use test was met. Didn't a jury just do exactly that? I realize Oracle must have an opinion contrary to the ruling else what's the point of an appeal, but will that really be the line of attack?…

> We don't like the outcome, therefore we question whether the jury knew what they were doing? Actually, that's pretty much exactly it. An appellate court is capable of ruling a jury finding as contrary to the weight of evidence. It's basically a mistrial ruling -- that the jury did not perform as required -- and therefore permits a retrial. It's a pretty rare occurrence, though. EDIT: This seems to be a good review:…

Post by magicalist » Thu, May 26, 2016, 9:04 PM UTC

dragonwriter wrote: post #74

theptip wrote: post #27

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Agreed, it sounds like by the letter of the law Google's use was not "fair use", if you grant the assumption that APIs are copyrightable in the first place. What recourse does Oracle have now? Didn't the Supreme Court decline to take this issue up last time round? Does that mean this case is closed?

They've got post-verdict motions at the trial court, if that fails they can speak to the Circuit Court (I think this will go to the Ninth Circuit now rather than the Federal Circuit, but that may be incorrect.) If they fail their, they can petition to have the Supreme Court take up the case (their refusal to take up a different question in an interlocutory -- prior to final judgement -- appeal previously shouldn't be…

Post by Sleaker » Thu, May 26, 2016, 9:05 PM UTC

forrestthewoods wrote: post #87

farcical_tinpot wrote: post #58

Earlier quoted context omitted.

It wasn't even really a case (like say, Samba) where copying was necessary to interoperate with a closed, proprietary system. Samba never copied anything. The interoperability argument was simple. Google wanted to use a language that was familiar to most and where developers could take existing code and port trivially. There are developer tools on the market that have done that for decades. Davlik isn't drop-in compa…

> You can copyright APIs, but you can't tell others how they should be used. What does that mean? What privileges would such a copyright provide? What could I do with the copyright that I couldn't do without?

Post by farcical_tinpot » Thu, May 26, 2016, 9:06 PM UTC

jdmichal wrote: post #54

technofiend wrote: post #22

Earlier quoted context omitted.

>Oracle's strategy going forward, both in post-trial motions and in any subsequent appeal, will be based on arguing that no jury could have applied these factors to the undisputed facts of the case and concluded that the fair use test was met. Didn't a jury just do exactly that? I realize Oracle must have an opinion contrary to the ruling else what's the point of an appeal, but will that really be the line of attack?…

> We don't like the outcome, therefore we question whether the jury knew what they were doing? Actually, that's pretty much exactly it. An appellate court is capable of ruling a jury finding as contrary to the weight of evidence. It's basically a mistrial ruling -- that the jury did not perform as required -- and therefore permits a retrial. It's a pretty rare occurrence, though. EDIT: This seems to be a good review:…

Post by farcical_tinpot » Thu, May 26, 2016, 9:09 PM UTC

forrestthewoods wrote: post #87

farcical_tinpot wrote: post #58

Earlier quoted context omitted.

It wasn't even really a case (like say, Samba) where copying was necessary to interoperate with a closed, proprietary system. Samba never copied anything. The interoperability argument was simple. Google wanted to use a language that was familiar to most and where developers could take existing code and port trivially. There are developer tools on the market that have done that for decades. Davlik isn't drop-in compa…

> You can copyright APIs, but you can't tell others how they should be used. What does that mean? What privileges would such a copyright provide? What could I do with the copyright that I couldn't do without?