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.
The judge isn't wrong, having a recursive name like GNU is weird and something only nerdy programmer types really appreciate.
This trial is a prime example of a concern I often have with the legal system in particular and the government in general: people who do not understand something are being asked to decide an issue. Government officials, whether they are judges, lawmakers or the leader of the country are usually well versed in law, but not medical research, technology, engineering, education and rarely have first hand experience with poverty, womens issues, etc. I think it's an unfortunate side effect of our system.
GNU is a recursive acronym. The best non-tech example I can think of is VISA, which stands for Visa International Service Association. The judge probably has a VISA card himself.
From what I've seen during jury selection, demonstrate either knowledge or the ability to think for yourself and you will be dismissed post-haste. The lawyers for both sides (criminal or civil) want more-or-less house plants that will follow their version of "logic".
Anyone who has followed the United States political scene since, essentially, forever (about 1796, or thereabouts) knows that our system is fully intended to maximize the power of the dimmest bulbs in the shed.
Honestly, I think we made our beds, and now we're being forced to sleep in them.
Amen. Although I question what the value of elaborating G.N.U. adds to the conversation, particularly given that it is idiotic and essentially meaningless. The reason there is so much whimsy in the computer geek world is that many of us have a heightened distaste for social hang-ups that serve no useful function. If a noun is required to identify something, any one will do, provided it doesn't violate trademark . In this case, that noun is GNU, and if asked to elaborate the correct answer "It is just a name, what does Alsup mean?"
I would say that is a failure of the lawyers during the process of voir dire.
If you want to get out of jury duty, standard procedure is to admit being an engineer at voir dire. The result in this example is a jury that is not competent to try the case.
Or he could have thought about it for 10 minutes and said something like this:
API is a silhouette, a contour, an outline of an object, but it is not an object itaelf, it is a promise that the object will provide functionality that the contour is hinting about.
To copyright a contour while maybe possible should not penalize those, who want to provide their version of an object that is projecting the same contour. A contour of a woman's body is clearly recognizable but it does not say anything more than 'it is a woman'. A contour of a car promises that the object behind it is a car but the car itself with all of its parts cannot be seen.
Applications depend on such contours to request the functionality of the objects behind the contours. To allow a company to put a lock on a contour would destroy ability of applications to use each other's functionality and would significantly and negatively impact the economy.
To prevent others from projecting a promise of functionality by using an existing and well recognized description of that functionality through the means of these API object contours is to stop all development of alternative systems unless sanctioned by the current legally recognized owner of the specific object providing such functionality. But an outline of a system is not a system itself. An outline of a door is not a door yet it makes it clear that there is a door and it can be used.
Should a particular door maker be able to prevent others from making doors that people can walk through because we recognize a rectangle on a wall as a passage, as a door regardless of the company that made the door?
Do we want a single company to control all doors?
You can't handle the truth.
Isn't there some philosophical argument (at least) to be made that says that laws that can't be understood by ordinary men shouldn't be enforced?
It seems like there's both a basic democratic element to it -- if the rule of law derives its legitimacy from the consent of the governed, how can they consent to what they can't understand? I have to live my life knowing that I may be subject to laws made in such a way I can't know if I am even obeying them.
It also seems to be kind of a streamlining effect -- if laws can't be easily understood, maybe they're unnecessary or not really enforceable, Or they lack the basic coherence that says they represent a concrete idea. Complex laws are more likely to represent the interests of narrow constituencies.
I think in the legal system also has a vested interest in the complexity of law. If laws were understandable and enforceable in plain language, the legal system would have less purpose and standing.
Be careful of mistaking a judge who is unaware for a judge that is letting counsel have enough rope to hang themselves.