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
"Is this all you have?" said another judge | 237 comments | Create New Account
Comments belong to whoever posts them. Please notify us of inappropriate comments.
People on Groklaw have been wondering about this for weeks
Authored by: jbb on Saturday, April 21 2012 @ 05:24 AM EDT
Judge Alsup: "It seems a little hard on the judge that the complaint could say... that we would get all the way to the end of the trial and I have to instruct to the jury as to what the scope of the decision is supposed to be."
This never made any sense to me. Shouldn't the judge decide on the rule of law before bringing the jury in? Why waste the jury's time if the judge might end up deciding that APIs can't be copyrighted? I can see why the judge might want to avoid having to commit himself one way or the other on this issue but in my (IANAL) opinion he has already waited far too long. The jury has spent four days looking at evidence on an issue that the judge may render moot by deciding APIs can't be copyrighted.

It looks like it is a huge mess now. If he eventually rules in Google's favor on the copyrightability of APIs then wasting the jury's time with the API copyright issue may adversely prejudice Oracle in the eyes of the jury on Oracle's other complaints. OTOH if he decides to stay out of it and let the jury decide the API copyright complaint based on the facts then he has implicitly reversed the previous case law on this issue regardless of which way the jury eventually decides. ISTM the judge has already painted himself deep into a corner. The longer he waits the more it appears he has implicitly sided with Oracle on this issue even as it becomes clearer and clearer that he should decide in favor of Google (and the software industry in general).

If the court had taken the time to come up with a precise definition for the "sequence, structure, and organization" (SSO) of an API then Oracle would have almost certainly lost in summary judgment. Almost all of Oracle's hopes are based on the vagueness of this concept. The very idea of the SSO of an API is absurd. It is so poorly defined it is almost meaningless. But as soon as you pick a definition and stick to it then Oracle will lose. Either the SSO will be functional just like the names and signatures of the methods in which case it can't be copyrighted or it will be extraneous to functional compatibility in which case Google doesn't want to copy it and Oracle doesn't want to protect it.

It is extremely unfair for the judge to question Google about the SSO of the APIs when this is an ill-defined concept created by Oracle and given a stamp of approval by the judge. The beauty of building a case around poorly defined terms is that it excludes earnest, honest people from the debate. Google has repeatedly told the judge in no uncertain terms that API SSO emperor has no clothes. The judge responded by questioning Google on the color, form, and fit of those non-existent clothes.

Late is better than never. Require that Oracle present a definition of the SSO of an API that you can understand. Have them show you clearly what parts of the API are SSO and what are not. One thing I can guarantee you: if the judge doesn't understand what the SSO of an API is then the jury won't either and this part of the trial will be a farce. Have Oracle explain what the SSO of an API is with specificity (which is the bane of BS&F). The beauty of this is that it doesn't matter how they choose to define it. Once they are stuck with one specific immutable definition, they will lose. No jury required.

---
Our job is to remind ourselves that there are more contexts than the one we’re in now — the one that we think is reality.
-- Alan Kay

[ Reply to This | Parent | # ]

"Is this all you have?" said another judge
Authored by: mexaly on Saturday, April 21 2012 @ 11:43 PM EDT
The Honorable Judge Alsup, a man who heartily disdains evasion and misdirection,
is about to find out that there is nothing for the jury to decide.

---
IANAL, but I watch actors play lawyers on high-definition television.
Thanks to our hosts and the legal experts that make Groklaw great.

[ 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 )