|
|
|
| Authored by: Anonymous on Monday, April 30 2012 @ 05:16 PM EDT |
I agree. If there was a possible ruling that was
dispositive, then why not make that ruling first?[ Reply to This | Parent | # ]
|
| |
| Authored by: mtew on Monday, April 30 2012 @ 05:40 PM EDT |
I think the jury will have to find copying, fair use and NOT de minimis on the
APIs, and IIUC, that will put it into the hands of the judge who will almost
certainly rule that the parts of the API copied are NOT copyright-able.
---
MTEW[ Reply to This | Parent | # ]
|
- my guess: - Authored by: Anonymous on Monday, April 30 2012 @ 05:47 PM EDT
- my guess: - Authored by: mtew on Monday, April 30 2012 @ 06:21 PM EDT
- my guess: - Authored by: Anonymous on Monday, April 30 2012 @ 06:00 PM EDT
| |
| Authored by: rsteinmetz70112 on Monday, April 30 2012 @ 05:44 PM EDT |
If he allows it to be decided by the Jury and then makes a legal decision, if
the appeals court reverses his decision there would not need to be a new trial.
If he decided before the Jury decided and the question doesn't go to the Jury
then if he is reversed you will need to have a new trial.
---
Rsteinmetz - IANAL therefore my opinions are illegal.
"I could be wrong now, but I don't think so."
Randy Newman - The Title Theme from Monk
[ Reply to This | Parent | # ]
|
| |
| Authored by: NigelWhitley on Tuesday, May 01 2012 @ 07:20 AM EDT |
PJ already dealt with this, I believe, but what follows is my understanding.
I'll try to explain why the alternative you have suggested (ruling first) may
have been less helpful, in particular to the court. I am also considering this
in the light of my long-held view that Judge Alsup thinks this case doesn't
really belong in his court.
First of all, the Judge only needs to make a ruling if the Jury find there is
"infringement" on the assumption that the material copied can be
copyrighted. So if Oracle fail to prove that, Google have the decision they need
and, because the Jury are finders of fact, Oracle will have to show (IMHO,
IANAL) on appeal that there was clear error of law or that the finding is
unreasonable based on the evidence. It's also my opinion that Judge Alsup
believes that's a standard Oracle are unlikely to be able to meet. So letting
the Jury decide makes Oracle's appeal harder if the Jury decide against them. It
also means that he doesn't need to make law or risk having an appeal court tell
him that was for the Jury to decide (as we saw in the SCO case).
Second, if the Jury find there has been copying, the Judge can still decide, as
a matter of law, whether the material is susceptible to copyright after having
heard all of the arguments and evidence (in essence he has held a bench trial at
the same time as a jury trial). On appeal, neither side can introduce new
arguments or evidence (again IANAL) so he can provide his ruling based on the
whole of the case, including the Jury's finding if that is appropriate. If he
decides for Oracle, Google is able to appeal that ruling as clear error and it
does not prevent them from also arguing against the Jury's finding (with the
same caveats as for Oracle). So, in one sense, this way Google get two bites of
the cherry to get a verdict in their favour or to overturn one against them. If
the Judge finds for Google, the Appeals court can likewise overturn that
ruling.
Third, the alternative of ruling first would mean that there would need to be
another trial if the appeals court found differently and remanded the case for
the Jury to decide their part. That means another Jury (and jury selection),
potentially further briefing in light of the appeals court ruling and more
scheduling shenanigans for the court and the legal teams.
So, doing it this way, Judge Alsup covers his bases. Whichever way the Jury
decide, the case doesn't really need to come before him again unless the Appeals
Court find the verdict was unreasonable and a new trial is needed. The Judge may
then also have a perfect excuse to recuse himself as there would undoubtedly
have already been a rule 50(?) motion saying that no reasonable Jury would have
so found and which the Judge denied (and similarly that the ruling was contrary
to the law). If he needs to make a ruling, he can also do so with the
expectation that he can provide a fully briefed one and can (again) recuse
himself if the appeals court ask him to think again, regardless of which side he
finds for.
To sum up, IMHO(IANAL) Judge Alsup is making sure that this insane litigation
about what amounts to chump change for these two huge and wealthy companies will
disappear from his docket once this trial is over. To be fair to him, that also
means a second set of jurors shouldn't need to sacrifice their time to this
lunacy either and the companies won't need to keep spending money on lawyers
instead of ways to make better products.
----------------
Nigel Whitley[ Reply to This | Parent | # ]
|
|
|
|
|
