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.
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.