Hacker News Board Hacker News, browsed like a classic message board
Live data from Hacker News

Jury in Oracle v. Google has reached a verdict on all questions but one

groklaw.net

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

21–30 of 55 posts

Re: Jury in Oracle v. Google has reached a verdict on all questions but one

#21

Post by WildUtah »

pan69 wrote: post #9
mauriciob wrote: post #4

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.

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?

"We have a criminal jury system which is superior to any in the world; and its efficiency is only marred by the difficulty of finding twelve men every day who don't know anything and can't read." -Mark Twain, 1880

Re: Jury in Oracle v. Google has reached a verdict on all questions but one

#22

Post by gte910h »

lawdawg wrote: post #7
gte910h wrote: post #6

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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.

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.

Where did you see this? No, I didn't see that.

Re: Jury in Oracle v. Google has reached a verdict on all questions but one

#23

Post by dpifke »

gte910h wrote: post #22
lawdawg wrote: post #7

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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.

Where did you see this? No, I didn't see that.

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#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.

Re: Jury in Oracle v. Google has reached a verdict on all questions but one

#24

Post by raverbashing »

mauriciob wrote: post #4

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.

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."

Re: Jury in Oracle v. Google has reached a verdict on all questions but one

#25

Post by coopdog »

rbanffy wrote: post #11
0xABADC0DA wrote: post #8

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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…

What is "copyrighted works" in the question and can an API be copyrighted?

And do they still 'infringe' if it's classed as fair use?

Re: Jury in Oracle v. Google has reached a verdict on all questions but one

#26

Post by coopdog »

dpifke wrote: post #23
gte910h wrote: post #22

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Where did you see this? No, I didn't see that.

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#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…

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

Re: Jury in Oracle v. Google has reached a verdict on all questions but one

#27

Post by stdgy »

0xABADC0DA wrote: post #8
mauriciob wrote: post #4

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.

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…

I don't think either side disputes that Google implemented a portion of the Java API, which they copied from Apache Harmony. But they certainly seem to disagree on what qualifies as a meaningful definition of SSO, with Oracle arguing that both the entirety of Java and individual packages qualify as SSO.

Re: Jury in Oracle v. Google has reached a verdict on all questions but one

#28

Post by dminor »

Natsu wrote: post #10
mauriciob wrote: post #4

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.

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

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.

Re: Jury in Oracle v. Google has reached a verdict on all questions but one

#29

Post by jerf »

brudgers wrote: post #18
busyant wrote: post #14

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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.

> "they just side with whoever is more charismatic" Same might be said about technical people when it comes to Google and Oracle.

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.

Re: Jury in Oracle v. Google has reached a verdict on all questions but one

#30

Post by btilly »

pan69 wrote: post #9
mauriciob wrote: post #4

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.

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?

That is because the jury system has been emasculated.

The Constitution in large part tries to lay out a minimum effective government, with as many checks and balances as possible to prevent that government tyrannizing the people.

Trial by jury was yet another check. If Congress and the President pass an unfair law, the courts are obliged to enforce it. But nobody can question a jury to know why they came to the decision that they did, and so juries are free to declare someone innocent if the law is bad. This is called jury nullification and is an honored part of the jury system. Surviving documents make it clear that this was the reason that the jury system wound up in the Constitution.

But the check has not worked as designed. In the 1800s employers sought, and got, anti-union laws. Juries refused to enforce them. The companies were clever, they sought and got laws requiring judges to misinform juries about their rights. You are only to decide on fact, you are not to decide on the law, etc. When they tried cases using unpopular laws and juries had received these instructions, the juries convicted people.

Those jury instructions have been modified over time, but still exist in some form. So much so that if someone states the honest truth it sounds radical. And that honest truth is that the jury system is supposed to a protection from bad government, and not a fairer way of determining the facts.

Post reply on HN