decoration decoration
Stories

GROKLAW
When you want to know more...
decoration
For layout only
Home
Archives
Site Map
Search
About Groklaw
Awards
Legal Research
Timelines
ApplevSamsung
ApplevSamsung p.2
ArchiveExplorer
Autozone
Bilski
Cases
Cast: Lawyers
Comes v. MS
Contracts/Documents
Courts
DRM
Gordon v MS
GPL
Grokdoc
HTML How To
IPI v RH
IV v. Google
Legal Docs
Lodsys
MS Litigations
MSvB&N
News Picks
Novell v. MS
Novell-MS Deal
ODF/OOXML
OOXML Appeals
OraclevGoogle
Patents
ProjectMonterey
Psystar
Quote Database
Red Hat v SCO
Salus Book
SCEA v Hotz
SCO Appeals
SCO Bankruptcy
SCO Financials
SCO Overview
SCO v IBM
SCO v Novell
SCO:Soup2Nuts
SCOsource
Sean Daly
Software Patents
Switch to Linux
Transcripts
Unix Books

Gear

Groklaw Gear

Click here to send an email to the editor of this weblog.


You won't find me on Facebook


Donate

Donate Paypal


No Legal Advice

The information on Groklaw is not intended to constitute legal advice. While Mark is a lawyer and he has asked other lawyers and law students to contribute articles, all of these articles are offered to help educate, not to provide specific legal advice. They are not your lawyers.

Here's Groklaw's comments policy.


What's New

STORIES
No new stories

COMMENTS last 48 hrs
No new comments


Sponsors

Hosting:
hosted by ibiblio

On servers donated to ibiblio by AMD.

Webmaster
technology is more complex; law is more convoluted | 543 comments | Create New Account
Comments belong to whoever posts them. Please notify us of inappropriate comments.
technology is more complex; law is more convoluted
Authored by: Anonymous on Thursday, May 24 2012 @ 02:54 AM EDT
I think the real issue is that computer science, like many other sciences, often
deals in absolutes. The law lives in a world of opinions and interpretations. As
I see it, the problems occur when the legal mindset attempts to deal with the
absolutes of science and tries to apply opinions and interpretations to them. It
is also why us technical people have so much difficulty accepting the law's way
of dealing with issues. To us, on technical matters there is only one correct
answer, so why do they keep getting it wrong?

This is not an issue of complexity. Both disciplines are complex, but in the
world of software, there tends to be a right and a wrong answer to most
questions. If the judge truly recognised this, when he asked the lawyers on each
side a technical question and got differing answers, that should have set off
alarm bells. It didn't. He just took it in his stride, accepted each answer as a
valid opinion and moved on. Imagine if the question had been 2+2? Should the
judge have been comfortable if Oracle said 5 and Google said 3?

Although the question of infringement started as a legal one, it soon changed
into questions of the mechanics of resolving symbolic references, stacks,
runtimes, and so on. By using the 'legal' mechanism for resolving the answers to
these questions, there was an excellent chance the jury would have been misled
on what are fairly straight forward black and white technical questions.

We got lucky this time. The jury got it right, but that was more by accident
than by design. They could have just as easily been misled on their technical
questions and come up with what was basically the wrong answer. When I say
"wrong", I am not simply referring to an answer I do not agree with. A
wrong answer is one that is reached based on erroneous information and a flawed
understanding. We should feel no comfort in the jury process out of this. We
should not have to rely on serendipity.

[ Reply to This | Parent | # ]

Groklaw © Copyright 2003-2013 Pamela Jones.
All trademarks and copyrights on this page are owned by their respective owners.
Comments are owned by the individual posters.

PJ's articles are licensed under a Creative Commons License. ( Details )