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.

Comments

"The G part stands for GNU?"

[Anonymous Coward]

Please let them bring up PHP for some reason...

Re:"The G part stands for GNU?"

[Plus1Entropy]

Honestly, I think we made our beds, and now we're being forced to sleep in them.

Re:"The G part stands for GNU?"

[ShanghaiBill]

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.

Re:"The G part stands for GNU?"

[Beeftopia]

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.

Re:"The G part stands for GNU?"

[GPS Pilot]

Recursive acronyms can be fun and clever. Not everyone immediately groks the concept, but that's no reason to beat ourselves up.

Re:"The G part stands for GNU?"

[Austerity Empowers]

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?"

Re:"The G part stands for GNU?"

[ItsJustAPseudonym]

"...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.

Re:"The G part stands for GNU?"

[ShanghaiBill]

They're like engineering jokes: "What do you get when you cross an elephant and a grape?

What do you get when you cross a tsetse fly with a mountain climber?

Nothing. You can't cross a vector with a scaler.

Re:"The G part stands for GNU?"

[jellomizer]

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.

Re:"The G part stands for GNU?"

[K. S. Kyosuke]

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.

The problem is, not many fields are based on specialized mathematics, and programming is specialized mathematics, and most people are probably worse at abstraction than at memorizing random tidbits (including many programmers (!)). So the idea of a normal-order-evaluated self-referential structure is probably more alien to the average person than most, if not all things from your randomly picked industry.

Re:"The G part stands for GNU?"

[serviscope_minor]

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.

Re:"The G part stands for GNU?"

[Gravis Zero]

Honestly, I think we made our beds, and now we're being forced to sleep in them.

I think you mean YABWBFSI (Yet Another Bed We're Begin Forced to Sleep In). ;)

Re:"The G part stands for GNU?"

[JaredOfEuropa]

There's a big push in the industry to make things easier for non-experts. For entirely selfish reasons, to be sure...

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.

Re:"The G part stands for GNU?"

[ragahast]

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).

Re:"The G part stands for GNU?"

[Archtech]

If that accusation ever came from a lawyer or a judge, I'd say that's the pot calling the kettle black.

Actually, the legal profession is even more guilty than IT. Because lawyers and judges stand to earn vastly more money when the public at large doesn't understand their guild secrets. Whereas there is nothing in particular to stop the ordinary citizen from learning as much as he or she wants to about computers.

Re:"The G part stands for GNU?"

[flargleblarg]

Yes, but are there really 12 programmers who don't all hate Oracle?

Re: "The G part stands for GNU?"

[N3wsByt3]

Panem et circenses.

It is as true in current modern times as it was in ancient times: the only thing the masses and the hoi palloi need to remain relatively docile is food and entertainment.

Re:"The G part stands for GNU?"

[ItsJustAPseudonym]

I think you are correct, that the judge is out of his element, with the programming aspect. However, we are concerned about another aspect. One that ought to be trivial and have no bearing on the case. The 'GNU' acronym. And that's where things get weird and sad.

The judge certainly has prior experience with acronyms, and he plainly expects acronyms to be created using a simple set of rules. The 'GNU' acronym has clearly violated his expected set of rules. Now we are faced with the prospect that the oh-so-clever GNU acronym is helping to irritate the judge. It's a stupid situation, but there it is. That's not a situation any lawyer wants to be in. (irritated judge)

Re:"The G part stands for GNU?"

[ItsJustAPseudonym]

We deserve what we get for having the audacity to ACT unlike the vast majority.

Oh my god

[NotSoHeavyD3]

He couldn't just bring up steering wheel, accelerator, brake, and gear shift as an example of an interface?

Re: Oh my god

[meerling]

I know what APIs are, and I couldn't figure out that menu 'explanation'.

Re: Oh my god

[ShanghaiBill]

I know what APIs are, and I couldn't figure out that menu 'explanation'.

The "menu analogy" didn't make sense to me either. The power plug analogy was better, since (unlike a menu) that really is an interface. It lets you use power from any source (solar, wind, coal, nuke) to power any device (computer, TV, microwave oven). You can swap any source or device in-or-out as long as it adheres to the spec (analogous to the API).

The power plug analogy also demonstrates why copyrights/patents on interfaces are a really bad idea. If everyone need a separate plug for every power source / device combination, then our walls would be covered with outlets, and you would need to hire an electrician every time you bought a new lamp.

Re:Oh my god

[roman_mir]

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?

Re: Oh my god

[Mondragon]

The "menu analogy" didn't make sense to me either. The power plug analogy was better, since (unlike a menu) that really is an interface. It lets you use power from any source (solar, wind, coal, nuke) to power any device (computer, TV, microwave oven). You can swap any source or device in-or-out as long as it adheres to the spec (analogous to the API).

The power plug analogy also demonstrates why copyrights/patents on interfaces are a really bad idea. If everyone need a separate plug for every power source / device combination, then our walls would be covered with outlets, and you would need to hire an electrician every time you bought a new lamp.

This falls flat in reality. Many devices have their own power receptacles on device-end (micro-USB, firewire, etc.) and those are all licensed. The in-wall receptacle in various countries (and in this case we consider the US) were also once licensed, but most of those have expired at this point.

If Oracle wants to demand licensing fees on the Java API, it's hard to argue that they shouldn't be allowed to do so. We might argue this is really stupid, economically, but the legal equivalencies are not hard to find. Even more importantly at issue in this case is that Google has taken the Java APIs, but not actually implemented Java - they've used these APIs to do something else entirely. This is somewhat akin to taking an L5-15 and only delivering 10 amps. Sure it works most of the time, but it's not the same.

Re:Oh my god

[myid]

Just because the judge and jury don't know what an API is now, doesn't mean they can't understand it, given a good explanation. An API has to do with code. Show them some code.

If I were explaining an API to them, I would say that it's mainly a set of commands for certain tasks. If a Java programmer wants to instruct a Java program to do one of those tasks, then he/she must type in the corresponding command. (A "set of commands to type" is easier to understand than "set of rules", "interface" or "contract".) There is more to the API than commands - there are data values (ex: Math.PI), and the way that the API is divided into classes, interfaces, and packages. But mainly programmers care about the commands.

I would go to https://docs.oracle.com/javase.... I would show the judge and jury the Math.random() method description, and briefly go over the description.

I would keep the description of Math.random() up on one screen. On a second screen, I would show them the source code of a very simple Java program that calls Math.random(), and then prints the random number. I would point out the line in the program that contained the call to Math.random(), and say, "See, that's an example of using the Java API method that you see here on the first screen".

I would say that we don't know how the Java program determined the random number. We don't have to know. We just have to know which command in the API to use.

They'd be able to understand that.

Re:Oh my god

[r0kk3rz]

...and this is why so many people are mystified by computing, the people that understand it are really bad at analogies.

Re:Oh my god

[smallfries]

Or he could have said something that simplified it instead of romanticising it:

The English language is an API: the alphabet and the dictionary. People use that API to write books, emails, webpages and a million other things. The things that they create are copyrighted as creative expressions using combinations of letters and words.

Oh whoops, it is a bit awkward that the law no longer fits that explanation after the previous ruling...

Re:Oh my god

[roman_mir]

Nonsense. SOS is a message itself, it is data, not an interface.

Truly unprofessional headline and story

[Anonymous Coward]

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.

Re:Truly unprofessional headline and story

[Anonymous Coward]

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.

Re:Truly unprofessional headline and story

[Tailhook]

The breakfast menu is a fine analogy and has the immense benefit of being automatically familiar to everyone in the Western world. I can easily imagine someone with sufficient social skills successfully conveying the concept of an API using a restaurant menu analogy. I think the real problem is the choice of using these celebrity geeks, all of whom appear to be suffering various degrees of Aspergers. They can't explain things to `normals' whether they use analogies or not.

Not wrong

[Anonymous Coward]

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.

Re: Not wrong

[Anonymous Coward]

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.

Re: Not wrong

[Anonymuous Coward]

This judge didn't say "sounds odd to me" or "*I* do not understand" or "you lost me at this part..." and it drives me a little nuts.

But in this case, the judge is right. A recursive acronym does not make much sense. Or, to put it another way, it only makes sense as a joke.

Maybe the judge was trolling a little bit too -- just like asking a catholic why he has to eat his saviour's flesh

"That doesn't make any sense," said the 71yo judge

[Snufu]

Unless the gnu lives on Endor.

Same thing as democracy

[Kjella]

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.

Re:Same thing as democracy

[swb]

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.

HS diploma who failed geometry

[Overzeetop]

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.

Re:HS diploma who failed geometry

[PopeRatzo]

These are people (the jury) who failed geometry in high school.

Let's all remember that this case never had to come before a jury. The sides could have chosen for it to be a bench trial, but I'm guessing both sides liked their chances better if they could find a group of people who really didn't understand what was going on.

Hell, they could have probably gone to arbitration and avoided a trial altogether.

A pox on both their houses.

Re:HS diploma who failed geometry

[Ferocitus]

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.

How can you explain Microsoft's Win 10's strategy without referring to a shit sandwich?

Re:HS diploma who failed geometry

[msauve]

"You could explain APIs from now until 2020 and half of them still wouldn't get it."

APIs are like dog commands - sit, down, stay. Implementations are the individual dogs and how a dog was trained to follow that command.

Re: HS diploma who failed geometry

[Applehu Akbar]

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.

Re:HS diploma who failed geometry

[DoofusOfDeath]

How can you explain Microsoft's Win 10's strategy without referring to a shit sandwich?

It's not difficult, here's an example:

Imagine it's Valentine's day, and you go to the store to get your bonnie lass a box of chocolates. You have them gift-wrap it, and you go to the fancy restaurant where you have dinner reservations. The evening goes beautifully. You take her home, and she gives you a very exciting come-hither loop. You sweep her off her feet, and carry her to the bedroom. After some passionate kissing, you gently start to lift her blouse, and there's a shit sandwich.

Sorry, my mistake. It can't be done.

Re: HS diploma who failed geometry

[ajakk]

As a patent lawyer, I can tell you that technology lawyers don't like engineers on the jury because they jury will give that juror's opinion inordinate weight. If that engineer completely misunderstands the technology, or doesn't like one of the parties, they can steer the entire jury one direction because they will use their outside knowledge to "teach" the jury. Rather than relying upon what evidence was given in trial, the jury will follow the lead of the one engineer, even if that one engineer is wrong.

Re:GNU is Not Unix

[PPH]

This could work to our advantage.

Judge: So, exactly what is recursion?

Definition: recursion; see recursion

Supreme Court is now stuck in an endless loop, never to bother us again.

Not ready for prime time.

[westlake]

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.

Erm Guys... This Judge writes code..

[andydread]

This judge is not clueless
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?

Re:Erm Guys... This Judge writes code..

[radarskiy]

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.

API

[fyngyrz]

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.

Re:API

[tomhath]

4) An API is the part of the previously prepared program that provides the means to access these services.

Your definition is what the trial and all the confusion are about.

Is the API an implementation, i.e. "the means to access these services"?

Or is an API the documentation of an interface, the implementation of which is a black box?

Oracle claims it's the interface specification, Google claims it's the implementation

Re: API

[Anonymous Coward]

But what if the judge can't be bribed?

GNU is a recursive acronym

[TerraFrost]

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.

Re:GNU is a recursive acronym

[Aristos Mazer]

Judge Alsup is a very well informed judge for technical issues... take a look at the original 2012 rulings from Alsup in this case. He is trying to elicit from the lawyers an explanation for the jury. It's the judge's job to predict the questions the jury would have about what they've just heard. It is NOT his job to try to explain the information himself, even if he knows the answer ... he's there as judge, not to provide testimony.

quickest way off a jury

[dltaylor]

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.

Re:I'm on oracle's side on this

[afgam28]

The entire software industry would grind to a halt if a copyright on APIs were enforced. Do you think someone should be able to sue Oracle for using SQL as the interface to their DBMS? Or using the Unix API in Solaris? Solaris ships with a C/C++ compiler and I'm pretty sure Sun/Oracle "stole" the APIs from AT&T and UCB. I don't see how this is any different from Android.

Re:What I want to know is...

[gweihir]

Americans...

Re:I'm on oracle's side on this

[Harlequin80]

But my understanding is that they are duplicating an implementation via black box reverse engineering. Anything can be described in words, this doesn't extend copyright protection to the final object.

If your interpretation is correct there would be no need or desire for software patents of any kind because software is collections of letters and hence fall under copyright. This just simply isn't the case.

Re:I'm on oracle's side on this

[tp_xyzzy]

> But my understanding is that they are duplicating an implementation via black box reverse engineering.

from the paperwork, it didn't sound like black box reverse engineering... Instead they copy-pasted the api definitions and then implemented the missing functions. This requires no reverse engineering activity. It just requires a text editor + some programmers to write new code based on _existing_ api specification. But they had no reason to assume that they are allowed to use that specification.

but if you're reading some other paperwork, maybe i missed the information ;)

Re:I'm on oracle's side on this

[radarskiy]

-1, irrelevant

The Appellate Court stipulated that APIs are copyrightable when they remanded the case back to the lower court. Not argument that they are not copyrightable is being entertained in this court. They have to get back to the Appellate Court to challenge that stipulation.

Naif, or disingenue?

[radarskiy]

Be careful of mistaking a judge who is unaware for a judge that is letting counsel have enough rope to hang themselves.

Re:impossibru

[grahammm]

Are you saying... the jury is not "of your peers"?

In this case yes. The definition of peer (From Oxford Dictionaries Online) - "A Person of the same age, status or ability as another specified person" As those involved in this trial are legal not natural persons, the 'age' part does not apply, for the 'status' to apply the jury would have to be legal, not natural persons and as to whether individuals people can have the same abilities as a corporation ...

Re:So quit with the analogies...

[Time_Ngler]

Surly given the time and cost involved ...

Yep, definitely, Joe Six Pack is going to be surly after you've tried to teach him all that...

"Fact" not presented as evidence is a no-no ...

[perpenso]

And yet "a jury of your peers" must surely demand some understanding of the domain of expertise and the issues being tried.

Absolutely not. The use of "facts" not presented as evidence is considered "bad" by the court system, there was no debate, no cross examination of the "expert" who provided the "fact" to the juror. Plus there is the technical problem that many "facts" are in fact "opinions", dearly loved and deeply held opinions that the holder can not imagine not being true.

I don't think the phrase originally meant "a bunch of perfectly average 'normals' too dumb or lacking in initiative to get out of jury service".

The original phrase had more to do with social class, a peasant having a jury of peasants not a jury of lords, and little to nothing to do with technical expertise, for example a blacksmith having a jury of blacksmiths. At best there was being of a sound mind and unbiased disposition. Perhaps unbiased implies not having a bunch of dearly held opinions in a relevant subject matter?

Re:Now Nerddoom is biting back ...

[djinn6]

"Less" is correct. Without less, all of the program output gets displayed on screen. With less, only one screen of text is displayed at a time. So it is displaying less (than the original).