|
Authored by: Anonymous on Saturday, May 12 2012 @ 01:13 AM EDT |
>You are wrong PJ, there is no evidence at all that this judge is
anything
but a
word-game playing moron just like all other judges and
lawyers.
I think you misunderstand the underlying motive and his reasoning.
Judge Alsup has already said that he feels that Oracle is going the wrong way
with damages and won't see anything like what they're looking for since they
have no credible way of computing damages and that he will instruct the jury
as such. Hence by giving Oracle want they asked for in their motion it gives
them one less reason to win on appeal. The jury have already said it's fair
use
so now the same jury is likely going to give them squat on damages.
The
hon judge didn't make up the "no reasonable jury" crap, that was
Oracle. He
just went along since he does not think it will make any difference
and if
anything will allow Google to stop Oracle in their tracks with an appeal.
If
Google wins the appeal it will likely mean that it's just less money that
Oracle gets and likely no retrial.
[ Reply to This | Parent | # ]
|
|
Authored by: Gringo_ on Saturday, May 12 2012 @ 01:35 AM EDT |
...and to say such is disrespectful. However, I understand
your
disappointment. The thing is, he has been put into an
untenable position. The
problem is the "system", not the
judge, who is doing the very best he can. [ Reply to This | Parent | # ]
|
|
Authored by: bugstomper on Saturday, May 12 2012 @ 07:09 AM EDT |
My IANAL guess at what happened is something like this:
Oracle never explicitly made the point that copying the output of a decompiler
that was applied to the object code output of a compiler that had input the
source code files is legally equivalent to copying the original source code.
Google may have noticed Oracle's mistake but did not help them out. Judge Alsup
did not notice or didn't think to instruct the jury on the matter.
The jury saw question 3b, asking if Google's conceded use "of the source
code" in the files was infringing. As far as they knew, the conceded use of
the seven files was only to decompile the object code. There was no use made of
the source code, therefore the answer was "no". Google won that one
because of Oracle's mistake.
Oracle managed to save that error via a Rule 50(a) motion. Once the evidence had
been presented and Google conceded what they did, any "reasonable
jury" would have found that Google's conceded use of the files was
infringing.
It not occurring to Judge Alsup that there is any question that copying
decompiled output is not the same as copying source, he found the jury's
"no" answer unreasonable given the evidence as presented during the
trial, and he overturned it.
I think that the jury never being told that copying decompiler output can be
called an infringing use of source code explains both the jury decision and the
subsequent granting of the Rule 50(a) motion.
[ Reply to This | Parent | # ]
|
|
|
|
|