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.
Honestly, I think we made our beds, and now we're being forced to sleep in them.
Only crack the nuts that crack. You don't put the ones that don't crack in the sack.
He couldn't just bring up steering wheel, accelerator, brake, and gear shift as an example of an interface?
Did you know 80 to 90% of the moderators on slashdot wouldn't recognize a troll even if one dragged them under a bridge.
It's not clear to me that the problem is the judge and the jury. The analogies seem like they're pretty bad analogies, especially the breakfast menu. It seems like the problem is just as likely that the lawyers and expert witnesses are doing a bad job of explaining things to the jury. Why do things have to be dumbed down, anyway? Why not directly explain what an API is instead of resorting to simplistic analogies? Instead, the judge and jury are accused of being clueless. Perhaps you should listen to the judge that the analogies are confusing instead of claiming the judge and jury are idiots. Maybe people don't like being talked down to. Somehow I have a feeling the judge and jury actually care about understanding what an API is, and resent that witnesses are talking down to them.
That's what expert witnesses are for. The judge also has the power to say that something doesn't make sense and ask questions. The problem here is that the judge is providing feedback and, instead of addressing the feedback, the judge is being treated like an idiot.
What the f... does the average person really know about running a country? Nothing. Why should he have any say in that, really? Couldn't we just leave it to a bunch of experts? And what's to say the experts are really neutral at anything? For example if you wanted "experts" on copyright law you'd probably end up with a jury full of MPAA/RIAA/BPA members, oh and maybe a couple from the EFF for balance and surprisingly most their verdicts would go in favor of big business. Having ignorant people on the jury is the worst of all systems, except every other system we've tried. If you think you can design a system that won't have these problems you're either absolutely brilliant or extremely ignorant. And I know what my money is on.
Live today, because you never know what tomorrow brings
These are people (the jury) who failed geometry in high school. And that was when he subject material of proofs and theorms (and logical arguments like programming) was fresh in their minds. The average American struggles with 6th grade pre-algebra - and I'm talking college grads more than 10 years out! Most of my (non-tech, 40-something, BS or MS degreed, commercially successful) parent friends are basically tapped out of helping their own kids in math by 7th grade.
You could explain APIs from now until 2020 and half of them still wouldn't get it. An analogy involved food/restaurants (which they DO understand) may be your only hope, since sex and excretory functions are off the table in terms of polite conversation.
Is it just my observation, or are there way too many stupid people in the world?
The whole point of pre-trial proceedings is to frame the issues in a way that a judge and jury can understand them. If you are not focused, if you are not making yourself clear, this is the time and place to fix the problem.
I suspect a bit of snobbishness in telling what the acronym GNU stands for ( "GNU is Not Unix" ).
Many non-nerds don't understand that nerds are often whimsical about things that normal people would take more seriously. Like naming a project that encompasses the life work of many people. Non-nerds not only fail to understand our technology, but they also fail to grok our culture.
Good grief. Really? REALLY? From first principles, assuming only that someone has used a reasonably modern computer:
1) The purpose of a computer is to perform various series of small steps, called "instructions", assembled in an order such that each whole series of instructions can perform a more complex task than a single instruction can by itself.
2) These assemblies of instructions are called "programs."
3) Computers can have previously prepared programs built-in, or installed later, that are designed to provide certain services to other programs, so that these services do not have to be re-created for every new program that needs them, and so that these services are performed in a standardized way for all programs that need them.
4) An API is the part of the previously prepared program that provides the means to access these services. The term means "Application Programming Interface" or "Application Programmer Interface."
5) An example of this is the window that opens when you want to select a file from within a program such as a spreadsheet or a word processor. This is often called a "file dialog." In order that users of computers only have to deal with one set of tools to open files, this service is provided by modern computer operating systems, and is often preferentially used instead of creating one's own version of such a function. The API for this service allows for asking that the dialog be opened, and then, when the user chooses one or more files from the list in the dialog, the returning of which file(s) the user picked to the program that requested the file dialog service. There are other services provided in the API, including "cancel", when the user changes their mind about choosing a file; change the storage location where the chosen file will, or does already, reside, and so on.
---
It's not trivial to actually explain, but it isn't all that difficult, either. I'm sure there are others here who could do much better than I. Without ever mentioning a... menu, etc.
I've fallen off your lawn, and I can't get up.
Recursion is not a simple concept to someone who has never heard "recursive case" and "base case" and "function". It's not a simple concept even to those who have. So, no snobbishness I think.
They're like engineering jokes: "What do you get when you cross an elephant and a grape? Elephant grape sin theta." No one who doesn't know what a cross product is, is going to get that.
This speaks to the weakness of the jury system. It worked well enough in agrarian times for simple concepts. But this is not a jury of (programming) peers. So they're not being judged by jury of their peers.
Recursive acronyms can be fun and clever. Not everyone immediately groks the concept, but that's no reason to beat ourselves up.
That that is is that that that that is not is not.
"...that's no reason to beat ourselves up."
We can tell ourselves that, after the judge has become irritated and secretly prejudicial, due to a sarcastically-recursive acronym. It's a sad state of the courts, for sure, but it's also a case of nerd isolation.
To be fair, this isn't isolated to just technology. Nearly every industry has its details that "normals" outside of that field just have no idea, and are considered idiots for not knowing what that is. That is the thing about specializing in a field, you know stuff that the non-specialist in that area don't know.
But I do believe that in the tech industry we had reveled a but too much in that idea of our superiority and sometimes try hard to make things more complex to outsiders than they have to be. And now it can hurt us.
Normally the idea that non-specials in the area for a court hearing is a good thing, because a specialist would be fixed on their point of view, so they would already be pro-Google or pro-Oracle, without the rest of the facts and not with the idea of justice, but with pushing their agenda.
If something is so important that you feel the need to post it on the internet... It probably isn't that important.
The judge did not say he didn't know what GNU stands for. It is counsel's job to present the evidence for what GNU stands for, not the judge.
The judge said the definition as stated doesn't make sense, which is correct. To explain the definition of GNU you must also have an explanation of recursion. In conversation between experts the definition of recursion is assumed as given, but for the trial it must also be entered into evidence.
One of the big problems of this trial is that different people are using different definitions of terms like API, declaration, etc. Getting counsel to clearly and completely back up their usage is part of the judges job.
Because the judge didn't say it's a stupid joke he said he didn't understand it. Big difference there. In the first case, the judge was ignorant of programming so taught himself before the case started. This case follows the proud British legal tradition (which you inherited) of proudly ignorant old dinosaurs ruling on stuff they consider it to be beneath them to understand.
SJW n. One who posts facts.
try hard to make things more complex to outsiders than they have to be
If that accusation ever came from a lawyer or a judge, I'd say that's the pot calling the kettle black.
If construction was anything like programming, an incorrectly fitted lock would bring down the entire building...