did not find
|
| Author | Content |
|---|---|
| gus3 May 09, 2012 6:36 AM EDT |
The jury found only that Google infringed, and could not reach a consensus that Google's infringement qualified as "fair use" or "de minimis" (a legal trifle). Judge Alsup has reserved to himself to rule whether Oracle's copyright claim over the API's is valid. And Oracle's lawyers conceded that the monetary value of what was infringed, was zero. Zero dollars, zero lira, zero euros, zero quatloos. Oh, and don't forget the interest, so it comes to... let's see... oh yeah, ZERO! Also, it's my understanding that in a case like this, the ruling isn't one of guilt, but rather one of liability. Oh, dinotrac? R U there? |
| Bob_Robertson May 09, 2012 9:42 AM EDT |
Simply deciding who has to pay whose lawyer's fees will be punitive enough. |
| DrGeoffrey May 09, 2012 9:48 AM EDT |
<Heh, heh.> "[Their] offenses carry their own punishment." |
| tuxchick May 09, 2012 11:47 AM EDT |
How is a lay jury supposed to sort this crud out? |
| Bob_Robertson May 09, 2012 12:12 PM EDT |
I think, TC, that both parties depend upon that factor. |
| jdixon May 09, 2012 1:05 PM EDT |
> How is a lay jury supposed to sort this crud out? Pretty much the way they did. Yeah, someone's guilty of something, but we'll be darned if we can figure out what. :) Paraphrasing the verdict slightly, of course. |
| Bob_Robertson May 09, 2012 1:14 PM EDT |
"Paraphrasing the verdict slightly, of course." Heh, "slightly". |
| tuxchick May 09, 2012 1:23 PM EDT |
"He's guilty, judge, but not too orful guilty." |
| Khamul May 09, 2012 1:46 PM EDT |
They can't, which is why juries should be abolished IMO. Countries like Germany and Italy have a much better system with "lay judges", which are basically jurors who have to be educated and competent, and have a little bit of legal training so they're not completely clueless like ours are. And the whole system where lawyers can kick out jurors who are too smart and don't think entirely with emotion needs to go too. The jury system was originally a good idea because the intention was to prevent justice from being denied by decisions all being made by ivory-tower judges who don't live in the real world and have no experience outside the courtroom, basically to inject some "common sense" into the decision-making. But our system has gone completely the opposite way, as anyone with real common sense or intelligence is promptly kicked out by the attorneys because a person like that isn't easily swayed by senseless emotional arguments and actually looks at facts. A panel of morons is not qualified to make decisions like this. |
| skelband May 09, 2012 2:49 PM EDT |
@Khamul: That's not an argument against juries, that's an argument about the jury "selection" process. Scrapping the jury system just makes the whole system of justice removed from the common man and woman. I wouldn't like to see that happen at all. The issue is not that people are too inexperienced to understand wrong-doing. The primary problem is that law is now too complex. Complex laws are bad laws and this is what should be addressed. |
| Khamul May 09, 2012 4:51 PM EDT |
@skelband: Perhaps. As I said before, Germany and Italy don't have juries (nor do they use English Common Law), but they do have people called "lay judges", which as I understand it (from reading on Wikipedia), are basically like jurors, but have to meet educational requirements and probably get a little training too, rather than being some moron straight off the street like we have here. They probably can't be dismissed by the lawyers for being too rationally-thinking either, the way we do selection over here, but instead are likely assigned to cases by the court and are probably semi-professional in their capacity. However, one part I didn't quite figure out from the Wikipedia write-ups is how things differ between civil and criminal cases; I'm not sure they even use their lay judges in civil cases, rather than just letting professional judges decide things. One feature I understand about the Civil Code systems like Germany and France have is that their judges are not lawyers, unlike here. Here, our judges are just lawyers who have been promoted. Over there, judges are a totally separate profession, with a separate school. They also have more of an "inquisitor" role, rather than the court being restricted to whatever the lawyers feel like presenting. Considering how horrible our own "justice" system is, and how we don't see all this BS over in Europe, I think we'd be much better off if we simply dumped our English-descended system and adopted the French/German system. |
| skelband May 09, 2012 5:06 PM EDT |
I guess that my fear of non-jury systems are systems based entirely on authority rather than sensible laws. If you are in the "system" then you are part of the "system" and if that system has problems, then it is difficult for someone within that system to correct them. I guess that's what politicians are for, but then we know how corrupt they... NO CARRIER |
| Khamul May 09, 2012 5:35 PM EDT |
@skelband: Corruption in politicians isn't a constant; it's a varying value, and it depends on the country. So some countries have thoroughly corrupt politicians, while in others, corruption isn't nearly as bad or so much of a problem. Some allegedly "democratic" countries are famous for corrupt politicians: India, Mexico, and the USA for instance, while the Western European nations aren't really all that well-known for corruption these days, nor is Japan. Obviously, if your system is thoroughly corrupt, then you're not going to want to trust that system for justice. In a place where the system actually works decently, then it's natural to trust it more. |
| jdixon May 09, 2012 5:37 PM EDT |
> They can't, which is why juries should be abolished IMO... There are sound and fundamental reasons for the trial by jury requirement for criminal cases under British common law. They should not be thrown out lightly. That said, for technical decisions such as this, juries of lay people may not be the best option. There should probably be an intermediate option of binding arbitration by a panel of experts proposed by both parties and selected by the judge. |
| jdixon May 09, 2012 5:38 PM EDT |
> Corruption in politicians isn't a constant... History disagrees with you. The exact degree waxes and wanes, but it's presence is a constant. Probably because human nature is relatively constant. |
| Fettoosh May 09, 2012 5:42 PM EDT |
I like skelband's points and I truly believe in the Nature's laws. What goes up must come down, by its own weight. |
| djohnston May 09, 2012 5:43 PM EDT |
Quoting:The jury system was originally a good idea because the intention was to prevent justice from being denied by decisions all being made by ivory-tower judges who don't live in the real world and have no experience outside the courtroom, basically to inject some "common sense" into the decision-making. Actually, the jury system was created with the Magna Carta. It was conceived as a method where the common man could nullify unjust laws and royal edicts. |
| Khamul May 09, 2012 5:47 PM EDT |
@jdixon: Yes, its present is a constant, but not in the same quantity. To suggest that Germany has the same level of corruption as Mexico is asinine and insane. And while things do wax and wane, Germany and the rest of Western Europe have been a nice place to live for longer than I've been alive, while Mexico has been a very corrupt country for a minimum of 100 years. Yes, not all humans are saints, but some systems are better set up than others; the political systems in Europe, for instance, are quite different from those here, allowing different political parties to gain power there, unlike here. Notice that the "Pirate Party" has been gaining power in Germany and the Scandinavian nations over the past decade; that can never happen here with the way our system is set up, and it would take a Constitutional amendment to change that. |
| Fettoosh May 09, 2012 6:00 PM EDT |
Quoting: ... and it would take a Constitutional amendment to change that. @Khamul, That is because the Constitution is the binding document that holds the union together. If the constitution were to be ignored and gone, so would the union. Europe has a similar constitution and it is the basis for its EU. I think @skelband hit it on the head and the problem could be fixed, unfortunately the American society and people are changing very fast. Technology has a lot to do with the change and greed is also is a major factor. |
| gus3 May 09, 2012 6:11 PM EDT |
Also, the title of this thread was supposed to be: did not find "guilty" of infringement but the quotes messed up the title parser. |
| skelband May 09, 2012 6:14 PM EDT |
The other reason why I hate complex law is that it should be clear to the common man/woman what the law is otherwise, how can we be certain that we are obeying them? So many court cases these days seem to revolve around the question of whether or not the alleged activity was illegal, rather then whether or not the activity took place at all. The Google/Oracle situation is a good case in point. A system whereby a court needs years to determine whether or not something is illegal is a system mired in its own self-importance. That can't be good for any society and ultimately only the lawyers benefit and everyone else loses. |
| jdixon May 09, 2012 9:35 PM EDT |
> Yes, its present is a constant, but not in the same quantity Which is exactly what I said. The exact degree waxes and wanes. > Germany and the rest of Western Europe have been a nice place to live for longer than I've been alive, And for longer than I have, but just barely. > while Mexico has been a very corrupt country for a minimum of 100 years. Mexico has been corrupt since it was a Spanish colony. But if you think there is no corruption in Western Europe, you're fooling yourself. > Yes, not all humans are saints, but some systems are better set up than others; Yes, but discussions of which and why would almost immediately become a TOS violation. > ...the political systems in Europe, for instance, are quite different from those here, allowing different political parties to gain power there, unlike here. You obviously have little idea of the history of political parties in the United States. The Wikipedia artcle on Political parties in the United States might be informative. While we've pretty much always had either two or three dominant parties, the nature of those parties has changed dramatically over the years. > Notice that the "Pirate Party" has been gaining power in Germany and the Scandinavian nations over the past decade; While what happens in the US is that the parties adopt ideas which they think will gain them an electoral advantage and which are compatible with their current platforms. If the ideas advanced by the Pirate Party become popular with the people, some political party will adopt them, hoping to gain votes. ...that can never happen here with the way our system is set up, and it would take a Constitutional amendment to change that. See my comment above. The Constitution has nothing to do with the matter. |
Posting in this forum is limited to members of the group: [ForumMods, SITEADMINS, MEMBERS.]
Becoming a member of LXer is easy and free. Join Us!