Jury retires for weekend in deadlock in Oracle-v-Google verdict
Stuck on single issue, but judge offers compromise
SaaS data loss: The problem you didn’t know you had
The jury in the trial between Oracle and Google over alleged copyright infringement of Java in the Android operating system has retired for the weekend after stalling on a single point of law.
The jury of seven women and five men began mulling the issue on Tuesday and have now reported that a verdict has been reached on three out of the four charges in the trial, but that they're stuck on the last one.
They appear to be clear on the question of APIs being covered by copyright, but are deadlocked on the issue of whether or not Google simply copied Java code, or if it added enough utility to invoke fair use.
"If there is hope for reaching a verdict on all the questions, we should take advantage of that hope and spend one more day deliberating," US District Judge William Alsup told the jury, the San Jose Mercury News reports. "So what I'm going to ask you to do is do exactly that."
Judge Alsup indicated that he would be willing to accept a partial verdict in the case, but would much rather have the jury agree on all charges.
The jury foreman said that several members of the group had requested more time to consider the arguments in the case, in the hope that people may change their mind on the issue and allow the delivery of a final verdict. There had been frequent communication between the jury and the judge over the issues raised and the panel appears to have had serious problems understanding the complexities of the case.
This is the first of three courtroom sessions scheduled for Oracle's legal fight against Google. So far it has seen a flustered Larry Page take the stand, ex-Sun CEO Jonathan Schwartz testifying in Google's favor and the leaking of data about how much Android is costing the Chocolate Factory. This ruling will be crucial however, since it will set the tone for – or kill off – the next stages. ®
Regcast training : Hyper-V 3.0, VM high availability and disaster recovery
COMMENTS
Don't assume the APIs are copyrighted!
"They appear to be clear on the question of APIs being covered by copyright"
Well, yes, but that's because Judge Alsup has told the jury to ASSUME that the APIs are copyright! The jury has to decide whether Google's use of the APIs is "fair use" or "de minimis", effectively deciding whether or not Google has infringed on this *assumed* copyright.
If the jury decides that the assumed copyright has been infringed, then the judge will rule on whether APIs *are* copyrightable - if he decides they are not, then the jury's verdict on this aspect of the case becomes irrelevant (unless the judge's ruling is later overturned by the Appeals Court). Of course, if the jury rules that no copyright has been infringed, then the judge will heave a sigh of relief and not have to make a landmark ruling on the copyrightability of APIs.
Then Phase II of the trial starts....
Complicated? Nah!
@sueme2
Sorry to say, but that analogy is flawed.
First the recipe... Its not the final product; that would be the actual food you prepared. As such the recipe is basically a /method/ which you can use / follow to create the end product (the food).
A computer program on the other hand is an end product by itself. Its a product created by a computer programmer just like a nice dish is a product created by a cook.
So to go back to your analogy: a better description would be to think of the recipe as the documentation for a computer language. The cooking would be equal to the programming and the end products would be the food and computer program.
Re: @AC 7-May-12 01:07 GMT
And you fail lawyering 000.
When Hicks and Gillette sought an injuction against the Liverpool FC board, the judge in Dallas *totally* fell into line behind the ruling in the London High Court.
Besides, what the author fails to mention, aside from Ellison and McNealey's blatant dissembling is that whatever the jury says is potentially mute because the judge has reserved decisions on copyright as a matter of law for himself.
He has already instructed counsel to brief him on what they think about the EU ruling.
For likely outcome, see above.
IT infrastructure monitoring strategies
What you need to know about cloud backup
Enabling efficient data center monitoring
Agentless Backup is Not a Myth
Top 10 SIEM Implementer’s Checklist
