On the other hand, if Google wins and the SSO decision
becomes
moot, not ruling makes it one less thing to be
appealed.
I
wholeheartedly disagree. If Google wins via a jury decision and also an
independent ruling from the judge then that combination makes it even harder to
appeal, not easier. Oracle would have to win on two separate points in order to
get traction in an upper court. For example, what if they had some procedural
nitpick regarding the decision by the jury such as a problem with the jury
instructions. If Alsup didn't also decide that Oracle was wrong by rule of law
then that one nitpick would suffice to give Oracle a brand new trial. But if
Alsop also says Google was right by rule of law then even if Oracle can
invalidate the jury verdict, they still can get a new trial unless they also
show Alsup got the law wrong as well.
IMO, the more independent ways
Oracle is shown to be wrong in this court, the better. Maybe there will by
three or four different independent ways they were wrong. That will make filing
an appeal a daunting task and it will make it very unlikely an upper court will
decide to hear the appeal. They would only do so if they felt it was possible
that Judge Alsup got all the points wrong.
---
Our job is to remind
ourselves that there are more contexts than the one we’re in now — the one that
we think is reality.
-- Alan Kay [ Reply to This | Parent | # ]
|
