Slashdot Mirror
Judge In Oracle-Google Case Given Crash Course in Java
itwbennett writes "Lawyers for Oracle and Google gave Judge William Alsup of the U.S. District Court in San Francisco an overview of Java and why it was invented, and an explanation of terms such as bytecode, compiler, class library and machine-readable code. The tutorial was to prepare him for a claim construction conference in two weeks, where he'll have to sort out disputes between the two sides about how language in Oracle's Java patents should be interpreted. At one point an attorney for Google, Scott Weingaertner, described how a typical computer is made up of applications, an OS and the hardware underneath. 'I understand that much,' Alsup said, asking him to move on. But he had to ask several questions to grasp some aspects of Java, including the concept of Java class libraries. 'Coming into today's hearing, I couldn't understand what was meant by a class,' he admitted."
I won't go to a Baseball match and be the whatever is the equivalent of a referee is! Judges need to be informed about the subject they are going to judge(?) on.
in letting James "Father of Java" Gosling go to Google.
In a case where the judge is learning about Java, and where testimony may be taken on the history of Java, it can't help to have its creator on the other side.
I'm not a lawyer, but I play one on the Internet. Blog
But when you have no clue about what software development is, then how on earth would you be able to judge trials about it fairly? Are the lawmakers that arrogant that they think they can understand the basics of software development in about one sitting, when an engineer have to study the subject for several years? Why not turn the tables around. Let's take a prominent developer with a nice career. Have this judge and some of his fellows give him a a one day crasch course on business law, what to do when a lawyer says "objection" and so on. I'll bet my ass we would get much more reasonable and logical judgements that way.
Football Odds
All that he needs is to understand the underlying concepts, which can be explained to him in terms of other analogies he understands.
For example, translation to byte code can be presented as a grocery list written in a foreign language; the person that is to go to the grocery and buy the stuff will have to translate the list to his native language, either one time (JIT compilation) or one item at a time (interpreter).
"A method and apparatus for generating executable code and resolving data references in the generated code is disclosed"
'The other patents discussed Wednesday are the '702 patent, which describes a method for stripping out redundant class files to make the final code run faster; and the '520 patent, a method for simulating how code will run before it actually runs, then producing more concise code to perform the actual operation'
We brits have judges who had to ask what a website is (in 2007!)
http://www.metro.co.uk/news/49376-judge-asks-what-is-a-website
kinda reminds me of the classic 'Not The Nine O'Clock News Sketch'
Counsel: This receipt is for the digital watch... ...a digital watch? What on earth is a "digital watch"? ..."automatic video recorder"?
Judge:
Counsel: Sorry m'lud. A digital watch is a watch worked by microelectronics.
Judge: Oh! How fascinating. Proceed.
Counsel: The next receipt is for an automatic video recorder...
Judge:
Counsel: Yes, I'm sorry m'lud. It's a machine that records television programmes on special tape.
Judge: Oh, how fascinating. What will they think of next? Proceed.
Counsel: Thank you m'lud. And finally, a receipt for a "deluxe model inflatable woman", whatever that is.
Judge: The Deluxe is the one with the real hair...
http://www.youtube.com/results?search_query=not+the+nine+o%27clock+news&aq=0
Lawyers for Oracle and Google gave Judge William Alsup of the U.S. District Court in San Francisco an overview of Java [...].
Thinking about the tech knowledge of the lawyers I know, I am not sure that the Judge is a lot wiser now!
This is setting a very dangerous precedent... surely the RIAA will lobby to make it illegal for judges to understand what they're ruling about.
Judge Alsup is a very interesting Judge. He is a complete hardass who doesn't take any crappy and wants things done exactly his way. Often he does this beyond what is probably fair, but he will hold the parties feet to the fire on what they do. He has had software cases before him before, and he definitely has the intellect to be able to handle this one. People who make off the cuff commentator about how dumb lawyers and/or judges are have never work with or against them in the context of high stakes litigation. Tutorials such as this one are more the norm than the exception in most patent litigation.
Some years ago I read the final judgement in a high-tech lawsuit involving detailed understanding of the internal function of disk drives (at that time - technology had moved on). I was impressed with the level of understanding achieved by the judge in the case. The explanation of the facts of the case in the judgment amounted to a fairly good tutorial in the internals of disk drives.
In another case I knew about, the two parties jointly hired a third-part consultant to write a tutorial for the judge on the underlying technology - the parts that both parties agreed on.
I cannot obviously speak for the case in question, but my experience is that judges and trial lawyers (barristers in the UK) are pretty savvy people. The are basically trained to go from 0-60 on a new technology within a few weeks. They may not be able to be creative in the technology, but they know enough to know when they do not know enough and ask further questions.
Consciousness is an illusion caused by an excess of self consciousness.
But when you have no clue about what software development is, then how on earth would you be able to judge trials about it fairly?
That is the problem with IP laws on technology: there are very, very few people with the combination of legal knowledge and technical knowledge needed to enforce them sensibly (and, in the case of patents, a lack of Renaissance Men with the required level of omniscience to make the hair-thin but crucial judgements about obviousness etc.*). Solution: don't pass laws that are impossible to enforce fairly (don't hold your breath).
(Does anybody know if Einstein was any good as a patent officer? "Sorry sir, what was that about claim 137b? I was daydreaming about riding on a beam of light...")
In a survey of 100 programmers, 111111 thought that duck-typing was a good idea.
How is the judge going to learn enough about Java, in a way that is unbiased by the lawyers for each side, in a few weeks, to make a sensible decision? Doesn't he need to know a fair bit about how Java code is used, who uses it, what for, etc?
That's got the beginnings of a great analogy, but the implentation fails.
Traditional compilation: the grocery list is sent to a translater, who translates the whole list at once. This list is then given to a shopper who can read it.
JIT: An interpreter goes with the shopper and translates one item at a time as the shopper reads the list, but the translation for each item is written on a new list so that once it's translated, the shopper doesn't have to ask for a translation for that item.
Traditional interpreter: An interpreter goes with the shopper and every time the shopper looks at the list, the interpreter has to translate regardless of how many times a given item occurs on the list.
...he doesn't pretend to be a developer.
Awesome Judge!
I am very small, utmostly microscopic.
Imagine if the RIAA trials had had billion dollar companies (and their comparably priced lawyers) on both sides. I suspect the judges would have had to get an education just to understand the replies.
How is a software engineer, in a few weeks, going to learn enough about a particular field to go and be able to obtain a spec document from a client? Answer, they don't, they just learn enough to be able to communicate with the experts, and translate their knowledge into relevance for the task at hand.
Really, the Judge in question seems to be entirely on the ball. He doesn't need to know how to apply the relevant parts in a program of his own; he just needs to understand generally what the basic principle is. You know, the kind of thing that got explained in a couple of hours of a lecture at the beginning of a degree. A bit above layman, but nowhere near enough to be a full on practitioner. When you know enough of what the base principles are, you get the ability to make sensible questions on the deeper detail.
All the judge needs to know is how this language detail translates into the field of law,
How is the judge going to learn enough about Java, in a way that is unbiased by the lawyers for each side, in a few weeks, to make a sensible decision? Doesn't he need to know a fair bit about how Java code is used, who uses it, what for, etc?
He needs to understand the concepts of Java, not all the implementation details and not how to code/debug/code/scream/debug/sigh/debug/relief java. And he doesn't need to be able to read Java or its syntax.
A quick overview of Java features that are not unique to Java will also help eliminate a lot of the clutter. He needs to understand using or extending classes (ie, the Java class libraries) but not have to worry about all the possibilities of public/private properties & methods, inheritance, polymorphism or other common OOP mechanisms.
Gosling is in a rather unique position to testify to which parts of Java and its virtual machine implementation are obvious applications of existing methods in the industry and which parts are innovative, new, and worthy of being patented.
As such, he would be helpful to have as a friendly witness.
In that regards, it's kind of irrelevant that Gosling went to Google. Oracle's mistake was running Sun in a way that pissed Gosling off.
With technology moving so fast, even developers have to read up on new technology to keep up with it; so it makes sense to me that we have judges who are facing these technological questions to be at least a little be knowledgeable about the subject matter before their court.
I would much prefer a judge to be knowledgeable about a subject.
This makes me wonder, should we now have judges who must have a background in the subject matter to be the only judge who would ever hear cases that pertain to that subject matter? How bad would this be?
Life takes interesting turns, but the most interest is when you're off the beaten path.
It's also very good (and it happens) when a judge asks an apparently stupid question and it turns out that nobody can answer it.
From scarped cliff or quarried stone she cries "A thousand types are gone, I care for nothing, no not one."
'Coming into today's hearing, I couldn't understand what was meant by a class,' he admitted."
That's OK your honor, most of the geniuses I work with don't understand it either.
"Oh, you hate your job? There's a support group for that, it's called everyone, they meet at the bar."