Well explained, but I would suggest there still
is some
residual
prejudice. The thing is, Oracle is portraying
Google as the bad
guy. "Look -
they violated our copyrights and they infringed
our patents
and they are
nothing but crooks!"
However, if the jury was told there was no copyright to
violate on the
material used, that cuts the slander and innuendo in half
with
one fell
swoop, while making Oracle look bad instead. Next Google
enters the
patent
phase clean as a whistle.
I know what you are saying,
but would it not prejudice
Oracle if the
jury were told? If Google can't deal
with Oracle painting
them as the bad
guy then they haven't got decent lawyers,
and I don't think
that that is
the case. I see the possible prejudice in that
there will
be evidence
produced aimed at the judge that might confuse the
jury, but
that is why
you have good trial lawyers.
Remember that the
judge's intention is to have the jury
try it as if it
were copyrightable so if
he even hints that it isn't, his
plan to give the
appeals court maximum room
for reversals without needing a
second trial is
dead in the water. It isn't
pleasant to watch but I do
understand why the
judge is doing it. And I don't
see another way. [ Reply to This | Parent | # ]
|
