|
|
|
| Authored by: Gringo_ on Wednesday, May 02 2012 @ 07:39 AM EDT |
juries, just like people, are easily
overwhelmed by options and
their own tendency to want to
obey. They want to
-use- the form you give them.
Like the fear of answering all
the questions on a test "true", they feel like
they have
failed if the paper ends up blank.
So in my minds eye, I
imagine the jury, in "wanting to be
fair", working under the assumption that
the form needs to
be filled out at least half way to make it
fair.
I had exactly the same concerns when I saw that jury
form. I used the analogy of a multiple choice exam question
we may have been
confronted with at school. In that case,
filling in random check marks will
almost guarantee us 50%
by chance. Your interesting anecdotes only amplified my
concerns. [ Reply to This | Parent | # ]
|
| |
| Authored by: Anonymous on Wednesday, May 02 2012 @ 09:12 AM EDT |
All the others follow and can be answered with some confidence, provided you
follow the jury instructions.
Q4 is problematic.
Who cares about a license?
Well it seems that Oracle *say* you need one (which is sort of true, but not a
complete statement..[if you want to be certified as compatible and use the Java
name/trademarks])
but, as I asked above (and no one has yet really responded to)
Since when did you need a license to express the ideas you had read about in a
copyrighted work?
(and that goes to all copyrighted works, not just the incident Oracle API
Specification)
Q4 ISTM is worded with the assumption that a license is required. Why is Q4
limited to 1A? why not only answer Q4 if your answer to 1B is "NO" (it
wasn't fair use)?
A: Did Google prove that it believed no license was required based on what
sun/oracle said/did if what sun/oracle said/did could be considered to imply
that no license was required?
B: And if they did *prove* that, did they then prove that they believed that no
license was required based on that
Obviously that paraphrases the verdict form and I may be misreading it.
What if Googe just believed there is no license requirement for doing it this
way, on the other hand if we pair up with Sun for the Java stack, we would need
some sort of license agreement.
That AIUI was Googles defence; can't be squared with Q4.
The correct answer to Q4 ISTM is "Not Applicable" irrespective of the
answer to Q1.
[ Reply to This | Parent | # ]
|
|
|
|
|
