|
Authored by: jmc on Monday, May 14 2012 @ 11:02 AM EDT |
I think the answer - IANAL and certainly not a US one, but given that the 7th
Amendment says that a jury has to pronounce, then no appeal panel can decide for
them. They have to go on until they find a jury that can decide something - this
was essentially how SCO won the first appeal.
[ Reply to This | Parent | # ]
|
|
Authored by: jbb on Monday, May 14 2012 @ 01:18 PM EDT |
Anon asked:
Since the jury's finding of facts
on the structural
copying (issue 1)
is going to be retried, and will
since whatever he decides on
the
copyrightability of the SSO will be
appealed anyway, why not just toss
all
of the legal questions
"upstairs" and let this jury rest?
A new
trial is far from certain. Several things would have to happen in addition to
an appeal in order for there to be a new trial. First, the higher court would
have to agree to hear the appeal. For example in SCO v. Novell SCO
appealed the decision but the higher court refused to hear the appeal. Next,
the higher court would have to actually find some error in what happened in the
lower court. It is quite possible for a higher court to agree to hear an appeal
and then find that everything was still hunky-dory. Next, the higher court
would have to find a problem in the way the jury reached their decision. The
higher court might find a flaw in what Judge Alsup did but still be satisfied
with the jury's verdict. Finally, the higher court would have to actually
remand the decision. For example, if Google loses, they could appeal on
multiple grounds. They could ask for a do-over of the trial regarding SSO and
also ask for the higher court to rule that APIs cannot be copyrighted as a
matter of law. If the higher court rules APIs cannot be copyrighted then there
would be no need for a do-over of the SSO portion of the
trial.
--- 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 | # ]
|
|
|
|
|