|
| Authored by: cbc on Friday, April 27 2012 @ 02:52 PM EDT |
Hopefully, the opening statements made clear what would be shown. The closing
statement must tie things that were shown to desired finding of fact in a
memorable, understandable way. That is what good lawyers must do.[ Reply to This | Parent | # ]
|
|
|
| Authored by: Ed L. on Friday, April 27 2012 @ 02:54 PM EDT |
| Well... you gotta give Judge Alsup an "A" for effort. Remains to be seen what he
finally decides, and why. Of course, it also remains to be seen what the
lawyers decide an API is, and why. Or what is copyrighted, and what is
"work as a whole." And all this this after Oracle has rested their
case, and Google's witness list is down to seeds and stems.
Yeah, the
jury must be sitting there wondering, just shaking their collective
head.
:rolleyes:
---
Real Programmers mangle their own memory. [ Reply to This | Parent | # ]
|
|
|
| Authored by: Anonymous on Friday, April 27 2012 @ 02:56 PM EDT |
Just to make sure the jury doesn't take away the wrong
opinions. Or so I hope...[ Reply to This | Parent | # ]
|
|
|
| Authored by: Anonymous on Friday, April 27 2012 @ 03:03 PM EDT |
That's the thing about jury IP trials. I once served as an
expert witness in an intellectual property case about - of
all things - a book concerning Kabbalah. 6 jurors, and I was
told by the attorneys I was working with that a potential
juror would be disqualified if he or she knew any Hebrew or
was of Jewish background. Then I testified about extremely
arcane translations of Hebrew Kabbalistic terms. I wondered
how anyone in the jury - or the non-Jewish judge presiding -
could have any idea what we were talking about. It was
ridiculous. I only know a little C++ myself - so I can
vaguely follow what is transpiring in this case - but I
seriously wonder if all these mini-seminars in Java will
make one bit of difference. "Public" indeed! :)[ Reply to This | Parent | # ]
|
|
|
| Authored by: Anonymous on Friday, April 27 2012 @ 05:44 PM EDT |
Lee De Forest was granted the regeneration patent in what is
today widely regarded as a misunderstanding of the technical
facts by the Supreme Court justices. Edwin Armstrong, the
true inventor of FM radio technology, ultimately committed
suicide in despair. You can read about it here:
http://www.damninteresting.com/the-tragic-birth-of-fm-radio/
According to this document:
http://www.nsf.gov/statistics/seind04/c7/c7s2.htm
only a fourth (26 percent) know that FM radios operate free
of static. So, it would seem general technical literacy has
not improved much since.[ Reply to This | Parent | # ]
|
|
|
| Authored by: SLi on Friday, April 27 2012 @ 10:30 PM EDT |
Actually I think it's starting to look like the judge does understand,
despite this question. I think he would have realized that he's asking a stupid
question if he had had time to think about it. It's just that nobody has
explained the public/private/protected stuff here (which is probably a good
thing, I don't think it's relevant).
I've taught university programming
classes myself, and in my experience there's often a moment most (computer
science) students have at some point where they more or less suddenly understand
what programming is about. Before that, it's like being thrown into water
without knowing how to swim; after that, they are able to acquire new knowledge
and skills remarkably fast. Sometimes it's almost scarily visible and sudden so
that you can literally see the student's face brighten with that Eureka
expression. I'm talking about the only steep part of the learning curve I'm
aware of.
I think I can read that same Eureka moment from the descriptions
of what the judge said. Certainly approaching programming from the "what's an
API?" direction is a very weird way to do it, but I'd think our bright judge
(and PJ too!) actually might not be that far from being able to complete some
basic and even slightly less basic Java programming exercises (with the help of
some tutorial text). The one central thing I have not heard explained during
this trial is variables, but in my experience that's rarely a very hard thing to
understand for students. [ Reply to This | Parent | # ]
|
|
|
| Authored by: Anonymous on Saturday, April 28 2012 @ 07:01 PM EDT |
I think the judge does have a pretty good grasp by now, and
this question may have been intended to make sure the jury is
not confused by the public keyword.[ Reply to This | Parent | # ]
|
|
