|
| Authored by: Anonymous on Friday, May 04 2012 @ 12:41 PM EDT |
And the lone Juror who apparently couldn't agree on the damages amount
thereby making the entire process a Hung Jury.
From the news reports
after, apparently it was unanimous that MS acted in an anti-competitive fashion
causing harm. It was only in the amount of damages that the lone Juror
disagreed.
If the Judge goes with a "partial" verdict, I'm with P.J. that
Google will likely file for an immediate appeal.
I understand the Judge
not wanting to "waste" the entire trial that has occurred so far. But I also
recognize that if he rules on matters of Law - depending on how he rules - the
Jury may not have to even consider the situation so he'd be saving himself some
headaches if he'd just look at the potential that API's - or their limited SSO
context - even qualifies for Copyright protection.
RAS[ Reply to This | Parent | # ]
|
|
|
| Authored by: rocky on Friday, May 04 2012 @ 12:48 PM EDT |
"fairly likely that #1 would be guilty"
Think of how these two ideas look to a jury:
1. Google's actions were really based on knowing that APIs are not
copyrightable, so they freely matched them. The jury has been told to assume
that they are copyrightable, so they're already thinking Google is guilty of
something.
2. Remember the jury instruction about how if you have found a witness has been
willfully false in some aspects of testimony, you can validly discredit the rest
of their testimony?
With both of those in the jurors mind, how can they not have an assumption that
Google's "guilt" extends to other things?[ Reply to This | Parent | # ]
|
|
|
| Authored by: Anonymous on Friday, May 04 2012 @ 12:52 PM EDT |
Not following your logic there.
You are making the assumption that the jury will find for oracle on some points,
its is possible they found for google on all except a few points, where they are
undecided.[ Reply to This | Parent | # ]
|
|
|
| Authored by: designerfx on Friday, May 04 2012 @ 12:54 PM EDT |
we don't know *what* the partial ruling is yet, do we? please
correct me if I'm wrong here.[ Reply to This | Parent | # ]
|
|
|
| Authored by: jheisey on Friday, May 04 2012 @ 01:06 PM EDT |
Google was also prejudiced right from the start by the judge not ruling whether
Java API's met the standards for copyright protection before the case went to
the jury. This should have been a question of law, not fact. Judicial
precedent and industry practice would indicate they can not be copyrighted. This
lawsuit judgment will have a very good chance of being appealed, especially if
the judge accepts a non-unanimous verdict in the copyright phase. We are seeing
the possibility of years and years of legal battles similar to SCO vs. IBM and
Novell. [ Reply to This | Parent | # ]
|
|
