|
|
|
| Authored by: Anonymous on Wednesday, May 02 2012 @ 06:32 PM EDT |
IANAL so what follows is lay opinion but....
... in attempting to foreclose the need for a second trial--
should Judge Alsup's ruling on the (non)copyrightability of
the JAVA API be reversed upon appeal -- he may have biased
the jury's deliberations unfairly with the instructions to
_assume_ their copyrightability.
I wish I had the link to hand, but it resembles the framing
technique that BitoBear described in earlier commentary: The
witness is not able to answer yes or no to the question
without detrimental bias.The jury in this case is faced with
the stipulated admission by Google of copying a portion the
JAVA API; yet, has been instructed to consider exhaustively
only the four listed factors of fair use; denying, I
believe, equitable consideration of Google's estoppel
defenses.
IIRC the Judge set aside councils' final objections, save
for grammatical adjustments to the language that would be
ultimately submitted to the jury.
Of course, this review of the Judge’s approach is just
"Monday morning quarterbacking" , isn't it !?
[ Reply to This | Parent | # ]
|
|
|
|
|
