|
|
|
| Authored by: Ian Al on Monday, May 14 2012 @ 02:48 AM EDT |
The judge had to get agreement from both sides on the instructions. I think he
has the argument that the jury were mislead because of pressure from the two
sides. The Rule 50 motion gave him the opportunity to decide what a reasonable
jury would do if proper instructions had been given.
Now I am completely adrift in a sea of process. Can the judge direct the jury
under such circumstances or is that only in criminal cases?
Should the judge have taken the decision to explain that decompilation is
infringement of copyright? (Groklaw has already beaten to death that both
original code and decompiled code will compile almost identically when the
function is simple or constrained by the system.)
Then I am reminded of something that PJ regularly points out that cases are like
three dimensional chess with plaintiff, defendant and judge as the three
dimensions. You would have to be a legal chess-master to know what was really
going on. All we can do is discuss the current moves and what the pieces are
allowed to do.
---
Regards
Ian Al
Software Patents: It's the disclosed functions in the patent, stupid![ Reply to This | Parent | # ]
|
- No. 2s - Authored by: nuthead on Monday, May 14 2012 @ 08:21 AM EDT
- no - Authored by: webster on Monday, May 14 2012 @ 01:12 PM EDT
|
|
|
|
