Authored by: Anonymous on Friday, April 27 2012 @ 09:11 AM EDT |
I mean, why are they trying to use analogy at all? Why not
just use
the real thing?
Because there are no laws for the real thing,
and the job of the judge is to ultimately apply laws rather than common sense to
the case. [ Reply to This | Parent | # ]
|
- API, package, class, declaration, etc: Do you think that it's unclear what the difference is? - Authored by: Anonymous on Friday, April 27 2012 @ 09:44 AM EDT
- API, package, class, declaration, etc: Do you think that it's unclear what the difference is? - Authored by: Anonymous on Friday, April 27 2012 @ 10:58 AM EDT
- API, package, class, declaration, etc: Do you think that it's unclear what the difference is? - Authored by: jonathon on Friday, April 27 2012 @ 11:56 AM EDT
- There's bucket loads of law - Authored by: Anonymous on Friday, April 27 2012 @ 09:48 AM EDT
|
Authored by: Anonymous on Friday, April 27 2012 @ 09:16 AM EDT |
That confusion?
[ Reply to This | Parent | # ]
|
|
Authored by: Gringo_ on Friday, April 27 2012 @ 10:39 AM EDT |
I'm really not sure why the judge seems to be
having so much
difficulty with the idea of implementation,
methods, declarations, classes,
packages and APIs.
I don't think it's confusing, because
I have been a
programmer for the past twenty years or so, but I think we
programmers needs to try to remember back before learned our
craft, what it
was like when we took our first baby
steps.
I entered the "Computer
Technology" program as a fully
qualified electronics engineering technologist.
The program
was a cross-over, from hardware to software. We had this old
CP/M
server with a big Winchester drive, and each of us had
a terminal powered by a
Z80 running CP/M, networked to the
server.
The capabilities of our local
terminal was very limited,
and our compilers and other resources resided on the
server.
We first learned to program in Z80 assembler, using "BDOS"
calls (same
idea as BIOS calls) to output results to the
screen, or make a sound via the
PIC. In the first few days,
I remember struggling with the concepts like where
was the
boundary of what was on my local terminal and the server,
what was a
BDOS call - did that do something locally, or did
it interact with the server?
Since we were working in
assembler, we didn't yet know what was a
function.
The thing was, there is so much coming at you at once, it
is
really hard to grasp any single concept, no matter how
simple it would seem to
me today. It was overwhelming. I
remember a little later on, when I had
advanced to learning
to program in C, how my head felt trying to absorb the new
knowledge I was learning at a rapid rate.
I had made the observation
back then that computer
technology was an alien thing that does not naturally
fit
comfortably in the human mind. It is like swallowing shards
of glass. I
remember I would have strange dreams at night
even - though unfortunately today
I can't remember what they
were like.
Today I live and breath computer
technology, and it is
second nature, but I always feel sympathy for those who
don't understand the technology. I feel so sorry for them as
they struggle
with the simplest thing. There are loved ones
in my life who call me when they
have a problem with their
computer - like - they had an email open they were
composing
and it disappeared from view, and how can they get it back?
One
needs to be very patient with such a person. Yelling at
them does not seem to
help them much, if at all :) [ Reply to This | Parent | # ]
|
|
Authored by: Anonymous on Friday, April 27 2012 @ 11:56 AM EDT |
I think it is in Oracles best interest to keep the judge and jury confused, so
that they don't find the golden nugget. It is something their legal team is
good at.
At this point though, it seems to have failed.
Dave M.[ Reply to This | Parent | # ]
|
|
Authored by: Anonymous on Friday, April 27 2012 @ 12:29 PM EDT |
I suspect that the judge has a pretty good idea of what the litigants mean by
at least some of the terms, and what he wants them to do is distill the terms
down to something that the jury can hang their hats on. When the litigants
actually do that, and submit it to the judge for his approval, he's certainly
going to apply the "duck test" (based on what he's decided in his
mind), and either approve what the litigants have created, or make some minor
amendments to clarify wording, or send the litigants back to the horror
chamber and make them do it all over again.
Lather, rinse, repeat, until the hair is clean...
It's in everyone's best interests, of course, that the jury is given very
clear definitions of the terms, and then clear (and simple) instructions
on exactly what issues they are to decide. Having been on a couple of
juries for much simpler cases (criminal and civil), I really appreciated it
when the judge explained The Law As It Applies In This Case, knowing
that although it had a lot of facets, it had been hashed out carefully
between the judge and the litigants.
[ Reply to This | Parent | # ]
|
|
|
|