Slashdot Mirror
Jury May Be Deadlocked In Oracle-Google Trial
angry tapir writes "The jury may have reached a deadlock in the copyright phase of Oracle's intellectual property lawsuit against Google, although the judge cautioned against jumping to any conclusions. 'What happens if we can't reach a unanimous decision and people are not budging?' one of the jurors asked in a written note sent to the judge. The 12 jurors have been deliberating the copyright phase of Oracle's lawsuit against Google since Monday, and they need to be unanimous in any verdict they reach."
According to Groklaw, Judge Alsup raised the possibility of a partial verdict — accepting the issues the jury can agree on and then retrying the rest. Google was less amenable to that than Oracle. Update: 05/04 21:05 GMT by S : The jury has reached a verdict on all claims but one. However, the judge sent them home for the weekend. On Monday they'll vote again and see if they can resolve the last claim.
I can't help feeling this whole thing has be a gigantic waste of time and money
N.B. this user is far too lazy to write a witty and intelligent sig.
Copyright lawsuits are a gigantic waste of time and money? The hell you say!
If this case isn't proof that the US Patent and Copyright System need reforming, I don't know what is...
Unanimous means all jurors, not a majority.
Those who can do. Those who can't sue.
It doesn''t matter. The verdict must be unanimous.
This wouldn't be an issue if there were an odd number of jurors.
Except that the jury's decision must be unanimous.
civics fail
An unanimous jury, how do they do that? Elsewhere we vote , 6-6 you're free, 8-4 you hang, 7-5 the judges give a decisive vote.
Specifically if there were one juror.
http://arstechnica.com/tech-policy/news/2012/05/oracle-google-judge-asks-for-comment-on-eu-court-ruling.ars
Like a good neighbor, fsck is there
The judge declined to decide in advance whether the APIs are copyrightable at all, but has reserved that decision to himself. In the interest of judicial economy, in the face of an almost certain appeal--no matter which side wins--the judge decided to instruct the jury to assume the worst case: that the APIs are copyrightable, and can be infringed. That way, if the appeal overturns a point of law, the issues of fact won't need to be retried. No need for a new jury. Unfortunately, this may have given the jury the idea that Google was definitely guilty of something.
Note that all existing precedent is against the notion that APIs are copyrightable. And that even before the recent EU decision (which the judge has asked the parties to brief him on). Oracle's argument for why their/em API should be considered special basically boils down to "it was hard!" But the SCOTUS recently reaffirmed that "sweat of the brow" is not a valid argument for copyrightability.
..break out your Initech Jump to Conclusions Mat.
Whether APis are copyrightable is a matter for professional bodies in computing to consider, such as the ACM and IEEE, not judges nor politicians. It's a technical matter.
And if this technical matter were decided at the professional body level, then this entire farce would have been avoided, because professionals in the discipline would not be stupid enough to deny interoperability by making APIs copyrightable.
Neither the judge nor (even less) the jury have the skill and background to make a sound decision in this area.
You had the previous 2 CEO's of Sun contradicting each other and the current Oracle CEO not able to give a yes or not answer to "Is Java free".
How are 12 Joe-Six-Pack's supposed to come up with a yes or no answer to something explained to them through car analogies?
Well if there were an odd number of jurors, and we made them fight to the death in a pit with improvised weapons, then the winner would be unanimous.
In my experience on a criminal jury, we went back to the deliberation room, talked it over for an hour or two, all agreed on a clear answer (we had the victim's testimony, and enough other evidence to convict even without the victim's testimony), and walked out with a verdict. Granted, it was an easy case to decide, but the system worked quite well.
The rules for criminal trials in the US are typically: 12-0 you hang, 0-12 you're free, anything else is a mistrial which means you go free for now but the government can try again if they want to. The assumption (popularized in films like Twelve Angry Men) is that if 1 juror has a doubt, it's better to let the suspect go free than wrongly convict somebody.
I am officially gone from
You do realize that it is conceivable that the last two combatants could kill each other or the survivor might not live long enough to issue a verdict? And odd or even, if you have to fight until there is only one left standing, you have the same potential problem.
If it works in theory, try something else in practice.
I have been following the trial closely through Groklaw and have observed many interesting things about the progress of this case. Oracle's case has been rather nebulous from the beginning and rather reminds me of the SCO vs. IBM case in many ways including the question of whether or not they actually have the right to sue. Oracle has changed its position several times on several issues from the beginning of this case. In one instance, Oracle agreed to drop one of its claims associated with a patent which was under appeal at the USPTO. It had been rejected recently after it was re-examined. And since the case was still going to trial on schedule, Oracle agreed to drop its claim associated with that patent. But after the trial started, the USPTO approved the patent appeal and then Oracle sought to reinstate its claims against Google for the patent it had agree to drop. In my opinion, it just goes to show Oracle's understanding of what "agreement" means. They already agreed to drop the patent issue. The judge accepted the agreement and wrote "...it is so ordered." DONE is DONE. Oracle may have felt "it won't hurt to ask will it?" Well, yeah, it might... and it did. The judge was annoyed as having to remind Oracle of its agreement and denied its request.
During the copyright phase of the trial, Oracle was pretty "confusing" when it came to its assertions about what is copyrightable. Even people who might be inclined to side with Oracle and knows a bit about copyright law would likely have been astounded at some of their claims. Nevertheless, they made their assertions which were countered by Google. But the thing is, some people are always inclined to err on the side of the plaintiff when they don't understand something or if they believed what Oracle said and simply shut out what Google had to offer as a counter. (This is typical in cases of "belief.")
And the judge already saw this happening even while the trial was in progress. Immediately after the jury went off to decide how to rule, the judge set about trying to manage how a hung jury would be handled or mitigated. He did NOT waste any time on the matter. And this well-timed ruling by an EU court lead to the judge asking questions of Google and Oracle on the matter as the question was rather relevant to the Oracle v Google case.
But Oracle's misinformation isn't limited to asserting what is copyrightable, what portions are copyrightable and all that (and it turns out that Google contributed to Java's code!! How interesting that Google can contribute code to Java and then get sued for it!) it turns out that Sun's CEO blogs were characterized as "unofficial." This claim, of course, is in sharp contrast the the SEC filings Sun had presented in the past. So the blog WAS, in fact, official in function and content. (It's probably not perjury though...Oracle simply didn't know... maybe...)
Google has played their side pretty openly. They didn't hide anything in their case and remained rather consistent in their defence and restated their case consistently throughout. Oracle, on the other hand continues to be elusive and imprecise with their case. Their case had crumbled significantly during pretrial motions and have tested the patience of the judge on numerous occasions. Meanwhile, Google remained cooperative and responsive to the judge and the case. (Seriously, Google wore an extremely white hat in all of this... I rather expected a bit of wriggling and resistance on Google's part, but I just didn't see it... so please, if anyone has an opinion to the contrary, visit Groklaw and show me an example of Google playing games with the legal system. I could be wrong, I just don't think so in this case.)
So any jury in a case of copyright infringement is already challenged by the likes of MPAA and RIAA cases. The jury most often wants to side with the plaintiff as we have seen in the past and grants ridiculously large and punitive awards. And we have seen the transcripts of these trials and the preposterous claims wh
Instead of asking them to assume that the API was copyrighted as a factor in their decision, the jury should have simply been asked to come to a decision about whether Google copied the API or no. Whether it is copyrighted or not is superfluous to whether or not they copied it... it is only relevant to the issue of copyright infringement. Whether they copied it or not is superfluous to whether or not the API should be subject to copyright. Either way, it's a non-sequitor.
File under 'M' for 'Manic ranting'
The rules for criminal trials in the US are typically: 12-0 you hang, 0-12 you're free, anything else is a mistrial which means you go free for now but the government can try again if they want to. The assumption (popularized in films like Twelve Angry Men) is that if 1 juror has a doubt, it's better to let the suspect go free than wrongly convict somebody.
The relevant assumption is actually that jurors are reasonable, and that if one of them has a reasonable doubt, when he explains it slowly and in words of few syllables, the others will agree. Conversely, if he raises an unreasonable doubt (e.g. one fueled by racism, alien conspiracy theories, and the like), the other 11 should be able to make him listen to reason. In fact, it turns out not all humans are reasonable, and the voir dire process doesn't select in favor of reasonability, so... life sucks, watchagonnado?
Of course, the criminal standard for proof being beyond reasonable doubt, rather than the more equitable standard in civil cases, is about the notion it's better to let a guilty man go than to convict an innocent.
You do realize that it is conceivable that the last two combatants could kill each other or the survivor might not live long enough to issue a verdict?
Just replace "hung jury" with "exsanguinated jury."
You forgot to post your drivel as an AC
You forgot to post your drivel as an AC
Relax, Sparky, it was a joke. No reason to get MacPanties in a iWad over it.
See, the joke is that Apple fanbois hate all nonApple products and want to destroy all companies other than Apple so we are all forced to use Apple products and world will be a better place.
I hate it when I have to explain a joke, especially when it seems that everyone else got it.
There is no "I disagree" mod for a reason. Flamebait, Troll, and Overrated are not substitutes.
Just to screw the entire tech industry, I know if I was on the Jury I would vote in favour of Oracle just for that reason alone :)
Doh, make them write their verdict on a piece of paper before fighting. And if they both die, just rinse and repeat, bring 12 more and have them fight too. Pane et circem with actual results. Everybody wins.
Better yet, have 6 people from one company fight 6 people from the other company fight to the death. Likely, you'll see a severe reduction of trials fairly soon.
...gis sdrawkcab (usually not responding to ACs; don't bother posting as AC)
The question as to whether or not they copied the API is not at issue, Google has admitted to copying a subset of the API. The question the jury is deciding is whether or not this is fair use under copyright law, or whether it falls into the other areas where copying is allowed.
Not only would you see a reduction in trials but you would have an immensely popular sporting event....
If it works in theory, try something else in practice.
Maybe there would be a reduction in the length of trials, but surely there would be an increase in the number.
>The assumption (popularized in films like Twelve Angry Men) is that if 1 juror has a doubt, it's better to let the suspect go free than wrongly convict somebody.
Because sometimes that one is actually thinking and notices things the rest just go along. Twelve Angry Men really points that out. As everyone, but one said guilty from go without considering the evidence.
Ellison vs Page + Brin...
Round One, FIGHT!
"You want to know how to help your kids? Leave them the fuck alone." -George Carlin
More likely you'd see companies hiring and training gladiator teams and the companies with the best and most popular teams (read: most money) would go about decimating all competition.
And nothing changes.
I offer to serve on this jury as tribute!!
I don't envy that jury at all. Google is claiming "fair use", which is really a difficult, and nebulous concept. Hell, it's a rough subject for law school students to grasp in copyright courses.
At first look, fair use doesn't seem that difficult. US Copyright law identifies four factors to be used to determine whether an infringement is excused as "fair use":
1. the purpose and character of the use, including whether such use is of a commercial nature or is for nonprofit educational purposes;
2. the nature of the copyrighted work;
3. the amount and substantiality of the portion used in relation to the copyrighted work as a whole; and
4. the effect of the use upon the potential market for or value of the copyrighted work.
Problems: each of those factors already starts out as a vague kind of grey area, and while some examples are provided in the legislative history, none of those is further defined in the statute. On top of that, there's a rather large amount of case law focusing on what each of the four factors really means in any given context.
While it's easy enough to armchair lawyer yourself and just blow through a fair use analysis, that's simply not how it works at trial. Determining whether or not it's fair use when there is already solid precedent for your context is tough enough -- making that decision on a novel concept is just a motherfucking bear.
Not if you implement your combat system to fit the requirements. Serialize all attacks (they never happen simultaneously), and make delivering a deathblow and delivering a verdict be a single atomic operation. That way, if someone dies while delivering the verdict, the deathblow is rolled back and their previous opponent becomes alive again.
As copyright owner of this comment, I authorize everyone to defeat any technological measure which limits access to it.
or if we removed a juror to make the pool have an odd number, and the juror we removed happened to be the one that was holding out... then the issue would be solved.
You're making this too complicated.
One thing they could do is blow off the judge's instructions to assume APIs are copyrightable. They don't have to play along with the jury-tampering. Just decide Oracle or Google based on whether or not they think infringement happened.
Also, juries don't need to read case law. All precedent is irrelevant. I think even the 'four factors' aren't in any statue?
Perhaps he's not an American. There are other countries where jury trial is decided by majority.
You have two multibillion dollar companies hiring the best lawyers money can buy, both arguing complex legal and technical issues. And a group of yokels you picked at random off the street - a group that can afford to sit through a long trial - is supposed to correctly decide the case on its merits?
I think the jury system, while laudable in its intent, is terribly flawed.
I experienced that one member of the jury refused to condemn even if we had the killers testimony. It is only after being married for a few years that I could understand why he had his doubts.
the juror we removed happened to be the one that was holding out...
That would suck if you were the accused in this story
For the jurors' sake, I hope they don't choose process termination to resolve the deadlock.