The point where Judge Alsup's reasoning totally ends up on its face is that he does not have access to the chain of logic the jury used in coming up with the verdict.

Has Oracle proven that Google's conceded use of the following was infringing, the only issue being whether such use was de minimis:

Let's yank this apart, clause by clause:

Has Oracle proven that...

Remember, this sentence is a question. It's a true-false question, and if any part ends up being false, then the whole thing's false, right? If the jury doesn't feel that Oracle met the burden of proof, we have a fail, nothing, nada, checkmark under "false". Does Judge Alsup know whether the jury felt Oracle's evidence was sufficient? No, he does not. The jury instructions *require* them to keep their deliberations and logic confined to the jury room, and so Judge Alsup is not in a position to say that they didn't flunk Oracle on this, or any other, portion of the test.

... Google's conceded use of the following...

When you say "conceded use", do you mean, "Google admitted using this stuff, so don't worry about that part", or do you mean "to the limited extent to which Google confessed to using this stuff in their product, which was, it was in source, but it never shipped"? There's a teensy-tiny chance that a person might read those differently, without tottering over the edge of unreasonability.

... was infringing, ...

Epic. Fail. Infringing on what, may I ask? Oracle never provided any evidence about the copyright of these individual files. So, to answer this question, the answerer must make a decision about what the copyright is on, and then come to a conclusion based on that decision. Individual files? Work as a whole? The 37 APIs? Will a layperson answer the same way as a lawyer? Not necessarily. Do the Judge and Counsel not know that? (This paragraph calls itself recursively, until the stack consumes all available resources.)

... the only issue being ...

Pretty poor construction for a verdict form. If you don't want people to stumble, don't set up stumbling blocks. What's an "issue"? Do you mean "context"? Like "the only thing to consider", "exclusively concerning", something like that? Or do you mean issue as "an exception"? "I take issue with that statement!" "You've got issues!" The more common usage would be to read that as an exclusion clause, not as a definition of scope.

whether such use was de minimis:

Here we have a well defined clause. Almost. The "such use" is hanging on the "conceded use" above, so which was it again? Was it the use that Oracle accused Google of, and since Google conceded something, the whole pig is on the spit? Or is it such use as Google actually provided evidence of, and nothing more?
And "de minimis" - in relation to what? Tell me again what we're comparing it to? (This paragraph calls the "Epic. Fail." paragraph. You escaped the loop once, but I'm sending you back. Mwahahaha!)

No reasonable lawyer could have written the question as it is found on the jury verdict form. No reasonable judge could have allowed it to be submitted to a jury. Having done so, said parties have little room to talk about others' unreasonableness.

[ Reply to This | Parent | # ]