I remember that Oracle's lawyers really harped on this point. They grilled
witnesses about it and they made sure the question was presented to the
jury.
Your speed limit analogy fails because the speed limit is a cold
hard fact so you are comparing your opinion to a fact. In the actual case the
question was if Sun gave Google the impression that a license was not needed.
For this to happen you have to show two things: first, that Sun made those
statements, and second that Google relied on them.
Of course, in the
bigger picture this is grossly unfair because Oracle admitted to the judge they
were asking him to make new law. Sun's admission that no license was needed and
Google's assumption that no license was needed both reflected what was common
knowledge at the time. It would be extremely unfair to penalize Google (for not
relying on Sun for their common knowledge) just because Oracle is now asking the
judge to make new law.
Unfortunately, the law is not always fair and the
law does not always make sense.
--- 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 | # ]
|