Slashdot Mirror
Oracle V. Google Being Decided By Clueless Judge and Jury (vice.com)
theodp writes: The problem with Oracle v. Google," explains Motherboard's Sarah Jeong, "is that everyone actually affected by the case knows what an API is, but the whole affair is being decided by people who don't, from the normals in the jury box to the normals at the Supreme Court." Which has Google's witnesses "really, really worried that the jury does not understand nerd shit." Jeong writes, "Eric Schmidt sought to describe APIs and languages using power plugs as an analogy. Jonathan Schwartz tried his hand at explaining with 'breakfast menus,' only to have Judge William Alsup respond witheringly, 'I don't know what the witness just said. The thing about the breakfast menu makes no sense.'
"Schwartz's second attempt at the breakfast menu analogy went much better, as he explained that although two different restaurants could have hamburgers on the menu, the actual hamburgers themselves were different -- the terms on the menu were an API, and the hamburgers were implementations." And Schwarz's explanation that the acronym GNU stands for 'GNU is Not Unix' drew the following exchange: "The G part stands for GNU?" Alsup asked in disbelief. "Yes," said Schwartz on the stand. "That doesn't make any sense," said the 71-year-old Clinton appointee.
"Schwartz's second attempt at the breakfast menu analogy went much better, as he explained that although two different restaurants could have hamburgers on the menu, the actual hamburgers themselves were different -- the terms on the menu were an API, and the hamburgers were implementations." And Schwarz's explanation that the acronym GNU stands for 'GNU is Not Unix' drew the following exchange: "The G part stands for GNU?" Alsup asked in disbelief. "Yes," said Schwartz on the stand. "That doesn't make any sense," said the 71-year-old Clinton appointee.
I'm not sure the summary is accurate wrt to the article or if the articles writers are slanted, because there was praise for Alsup in Oracle v. Google (2012) for actually knowing how to program. Would argue that maybe the better interpretation of Alsup's questionings and responses were that the programmers and lawyers were dumbing down the explanations too much.
https://tech.slashdot.org/comments.pl?sid=2887227&cid=40175735
by gcnaddict ( 841664 ) on Thursday May 31, 2012 @10:17PM (#40175735)
via c|net [cnet.com]:
On many days, the San Francisco courtroom where he presided was more like a computer science classroom. Alsup acknowledged during the trial that he had learned about Java coding to better prepare for the case, and it showed. On a daily basis, he would deftly query the lawyers and expert witnesses on the structure, sequence, and organizations of APIs to assist the jury in understanding the key facets of the copyright phase of the trial.
This is why I have respect for Judge Alsup. In order to apply the law in a complex engineering-related case, he worked to learn the subject matter in order to properly apply the law to the material. That's how I expect every Judge should apply the law rather than just sit and "trust the experts" per-se.
Judge Alsup writes code
Quote from this judge from this same case before the appeal I believe
I have done, and still do, a significant amount of programming in other languages. I've written blocks of code like rangeCheck a hundred times before. I could do it, you could do it. The idea that someone would copy that when they could do it themselves just as fast, it was an accident. There's no way you could say that was speeding them along to the marketplace. You're one of the best lawyers in America, how could you even make that kind of argument?
In the first case, the judge was ignorant of programming so taught himself before the case started.
It's the same judge (William Alsup), and he still knows how to program (in Java). The menu analogy is poor, and recursive acronyms aren't funny to everyone, I guess. It doesn't make him clueless, and anyone who has followed these cases could tell you that Alsup is considers Google to be in the right (thus his ruling in the first case).
.:Semper Absurda:.