|
| Authored by: Anonymous on Monday, April 30 2012 @ 12:23 AM EDT |
Yes, I think you are right about the judge's thinking, I just don't think it
should be handled that way (from a lay person's perspective).[ Reply to This | Parent | # ]
|
|
|
| Authored by: Anonymous on Monday, April 30 2012 @ 03:20 AM EDT |
The judge realizes that there is a good chance that, on the basis of the
evidence presented to the court, Oracle will loose this part of the case.
Indeed, Schwartz pretty much nailed Oracle's coffin down.
So the judge is doing everything he can to get that verdict down on paper, all
while providing as little grounds as possible for Oracle's inevitable appeal.
He can then make all sorts of legal rulings, declaring APIs uncopyrightable, and
slapping Oracle upside the head for their sloppiness. Even if the jury decides
for Oracle, he can then render the verdict meaningless with his decisions, and
he knows that Google has plenty of grounds for appeal.[ Reply to This | Parent | # ]
|
|
|
| Authored by: Anonymous on Monday, April 30 2012 @ 05:08 AM EDT |
I think you are probably right. I guess judge Alsup knows the tendency of
courts of appeal to have matters tried by jury, even if they should not be.
It
would be horrible to force a second jury to attend this case.
Google
have been injured already by forcing them to defend against ludicrous
accusations. This is made worse by having to go though all kinds of stages,
spending al lot of time, in order to select the evidence that should be
presented to the jury, and arguing about damage reports before any infringement
is found. It is grossly inefficient, and this inefficiency makes it
prohibitively expensive to defend against trolls or parties who use the courts
to kill competition. Apparently Oracle are very afraid to compete with
free (see answers of Safra Katz.) The way he volunteered his opinion, indicates
to me that this really is an attack on free software and the first question that
came to my mind is whether there have been discussions with other proprietary
software companies to attack free software.
The case should have been
tossed out in (or before) the first hearing when it became obvious there were no
real copyright claims and only patents on a virtual machine, not a real
one. No machine => no patent.
[ Reply to This | Parent | # ]
|
|
|
| Authored by: Anonymous on Monday, April 30 2012 @ 05:11 AM EDT |
"Buried at a crossroads at midnight, stake through the heart, silver coin
in it's mouth."
You forgot the lemon in it's mouth and it's head cut off. Or is that something
else?[ Reply to This | Parent | # ]
|
|
|
| Authored by: BitOBear on Monday, April 30 2012 @ 05:19 AM EDT |
Beheaded.
Head buried separately.
Buried face down.
Burned first (or at least heavily scortched).
Covered in Salt.
Under a Consecrated Host.
And most importantly.
Under the properly incinerated bodies of it's disbarred lawyers.[ Reply to This | Parent | # ]
|
|
