|
|
|
| Authored by: PJ on Wednesday, May 02 2012 @ 03:15 PM EDT |
Don't read too much into this. Reporters are
wired to look for headlines, but they aren't
all trained to know what to look for.
The jurors are probably just going down the list
and trying to make sense of it.
Also, it has to be unanimous, and if one
juror is stuck on one point, as we've seen happen
even here in comments, that one person's question
might be sent to the judge when the others can't
get through to him or her.
Just so many possibilities.
And there is no way to know.
Even the judge's response could mean more than
one thing: it could mean he's just grumpy today;
it could mean he already has decided to rule that
APIs are not copyrightable; it could mean his
finger is a bit heavy on the scale, as Google
said. At this point, we don't have a way to know.
Even what Google said could mean several things,
one being that it was preserving the issue for
appeal if things go wrong from Google's perspective.
It's interesting retroactively, because we then
will know what it meant. But now, it's just
guesswork. It's hard to wait, but there is no
viable option.[ Reply to This | Parent | # ]
|
|
|
|
|
