|
Discendo Vox posted:What are you talking about? I'm guessing it's that crazy Texas federal judge who is ordering the DoJ attorneys that tried the immigration case to take ethics classes because he is a crazy person.
|
#
?
May 26, 2016 16:19
|
|
|
|
| # ? Jun 6, 2024 11:23 |
|
|
Google won versus Oracle on the fair use defense. Unanimous jury verdict. I'd like to note that for all the "they have no case"-sayers in this thread. http://arstechnica.com/tech-policy/2016/05/google-wins-trial-against-oracle-as-jury-finds-android-is-fair-use/
|
|
#
?
May 26, 2016 21:07
|
|
|
Jurors are stupid. Google doesn't have a valid fair use defense and this will get overturned on appeal.
|
|
#
?
May 26, 2016 21:14
|
|
|
Mr. Nice! posted:Jurors are stupid. Google doesn't have a valid fair use defense and this will get overturned on appeal. I suspect I'll get a better answer here than in yospos: Wasn't that a finding of fact?
|
|
#
?
May 26, 2016 21:16
|
|
|
I'm going with the jurors being able to see what a farcical shitfest this whole thing has been
|
|
#
?
May 26, 2016 21:19
|
|
|
hobbesmaster posted:I suspect I'll get a better answer here than in yospos: Wasn't that a finding of fact? It's tough to tell, with recent cases tending towards viewing fair use as a matter of law with de novo review. However, some recent cases have still applied clear error review for a jury determination on the issue. http://scholarcommons.sc.edu/cgi/viewcontent.cgi?article=1907&context=law_facpub
|
|
#
?
May 26, 2016 21:19
|
|
|
hobbesmaster posted:I suspect I'll get a better answer here than in yospos: Wasn't that a finding of fact? Its not going to be limited. The appellate court can and will render a determination of their own on fair use.
|
|
#
?
May 26, 2016 21:20
|
|
|
D&D really can't resist a good IP derail huh
|
|
#
?
May 26, 2016 21:30
|
|
|
Mr. Nice! posted:Jurors are stupid. Google doesn't have a valid fair use defense and this will get overturned on appeal. I hope they win all the way. Frankly, nearly every developer I know is cheering this win. quote:"They copied 11,500 lines of code," Oracle attorney Peter Bicks said during closing arguments. "It's undisputed. They took the code, they copied it, and put it right into Android." See, this is why I didn't buy your earlier arguments about "You don't know IP Law". Frankly, these lawyers do not understand how coding works. Even better quote:Oracle CEO Larry Ellison welcomed Android at first, but later he "changed his mind, after he had tried to use Java to build his own smartphone and failed to do it," Google attorney Robert Van Nest told the jury. It REALLY is the new SCO vs Linux case. Oracle wants a piece of a pie they neither contributed to nor deserve, but because they bought a company, think they are entitled to the whole thing, in direct contradiction to the entire idea of how open source works. Oracle is just angry that a library they acquired was used to make a very successful product, and now want their cut. CommieGIR fucked around with this message at 21:39 on May 26, 2016 |
|
#
?
May 26, 2016 21:34
|
|
|
CommieGIR posted:I hope they win all the way. Frankly, nearly every developer I know is cheering this win. Or they're attempting to appeal to a jury that isn't made up of coders. I wonder which it is
|
|
#
?
May 26, 2016 21:40
|
|
|
Mr. Nice! posted:Jurors are stupid. Google doesn't have a valid fair use defense and this will get overturned on appeal. There's the test, but the actual caselaw just basically boils down to "whatever we feel like, as constrained by supreme court decisions directly on point". That's fundamental to the problem with fair use - that you can't use it without being able to pay for an army of lawyers and you can't ever be sure you're going to win.
|
|
#
?
May 26, 2016 21:56
|
|
|
ulmont posted:It's tough to tell, with recent cases tending towards viewing fair use as a matter of law with de novo review. However, some recent cases have still applied clear error review for a jury determination on the issue. I wonder if Oracle could be held to have waived any argument it's a matter of law by agreeing it's one of the matters to be submitted to the jury while agreeing to submit other matters to the judge. edit: reading through the original appellate decision, I doubt it. evilweasel fucked around with this message at 22:09 on May 26, 2016 |
|
#
?
May 26, 2016 21:58
|
|
|
evilweasel posted:ok there is basically no better way to emblazon I DONT KNOW WHAT IM TALKING ABOUT than to act like fair use is defined well enough to make a statement like this I'm just saying after seeing google's presentation that they didn't really satisfy any of the four factors that are supposed to be weighed and the jury is basically ignorant on how to apply the law. Google did not answer the issues the appellate court laid out in their previous opinion and it seemed like they were ready to rule against google previously but felt it inappropriate.
|
|
#
?
May 26, 2016 22:49
|
|
|
Mr. Nice! posted:I'm just saying after seeing google's presentation that they didn't really satisfy any of the four factors that are supposed to be weighed and the jury is basically ignorant on how to apply the law. Google did not answer the issues the appellate court laid out in their previous opinion and it seemed like they were ready to rule against google previously but felt it inappropriate. The non-exclusive four factors? And you would not review google's presentation to determine if the jury was ignorant on how to apply the law, you would review the jury instructions (and the appellate court was specific about what it wanted to see in the jury instructions so I assume that they were followed, they basically said 'cut and paste the sections of our opinion discussing fair use into the jury instructions'). It's one thing to say you think the jury got it wrong, that's defensible. It's another to say that there's no way to uphold it on appeal, and that's clearly not because fair use just isn't the type of doctrine that lets you make such categorical statements. If I had to bet, i'd say Google had a reasonable shot of getting overturned on appeal, but that's because the Federal Circuit is really, really bad and has basically never seen any question where their response wasn't "extend IP farther to cover this" except during those rare and short periods of time where the Supreme Court is busy reviewing and obviously planning on overturning one of their decisions.
|
|
#
?
May 26, 2016 23:27
|
|
|
This might not be the right place to ask but I figured I could bring a federal justice question here: in light of the massive shitstorm unfolding at Baylor, what kind of punishment can a private university face for failing to comply with Title IX in such a serious way? I'm assuming loss of federal funding at most but I don't really know.
|
|
#
?
May 26, 2016 23:41
|
|
|
Badger of Basra posted:This might not be the right place to ask but I figured I could bring a federal justice question here: in light of the massive shitstorm unfolding at Baylor, what kind of punishment can a private university face for failing to comply with Title IX in such a serious way? I'm assuming loss of federal funding at most but I don't really know.
|
|
#
?
May 26, 2016 23:49
|
|
|
Badger of Basra posted:This might not be the right place to ask but I figured I could bring a federal justice question here: in light of the massive shitstorm unfolding at Baylor, what kind of punishment can a private university face for failing to comply with Title IX in such a serious way? I'm assuming loss of federal funding at most but I don't really know. I'm pretty sure the biggest part of that is lack of all federal funding. That also means no Pell grants or Stafford loans for students. Some smaller schools have decided to do this on some sense of principle, but they don't have a brand new expensive football stadium to pay off.
|
|
#
?
May 26, 2016 23:52
|
|
|
FlamingLiberal posted:I think they can possibly remove their accreditation? accreditation is typically done by non-governmental organizations I'd have to check what does Baylor, it's likely SACS OJ MIST 2 THE DICK fucked around with this message at 00:04 on May 27, 2016 |
|
#
?
May 27, 2016 00:02
|
|
|
I think this also translates to no research funding. Regardless, completely stripping federal funding for a remotely sizeable uni is death.
|
|
|
#
?
May 27, 2016 00:08
|
|
|
Mr. Nice! posted:Jurors are stupid. Google doesn't have a valid fair use defense and this will get overturned on appeal. Regardless of whether or not this is the correct interpretation of fair use under existing law, it absolutely is the correct interpretation of fair use as it should apply to software. I am OK with correcting the course of software fair use via precedent as it is unlikely the law would be changed.
|
|
#
?
May 27, 2016 00:28
|
|
|
Mr. Nice! posted:I'm just saying after seeing google's presentation that they didn't really satisfy any of the four factors that are supposed to be weighed and the jury is basically ignorant on how to apply the law. Google did not answer the issues the appellate court laid out in their previous opinion and it seemed like they were ready to rule against google previously but felt it inappropriate. Or they satisfied the nature of the work factor.
|
|
#
?
May 27, 2016 00:41
|
|
|
Discendo Vox posted:I think this also translates to no research funding. Regardless, completely stripping federal funding for a remotely sizeable uni is death. I'm sure whoever takes over a Baylor next will be a hatchet man specifically to deal this
|
|
#
?
May 27, 2016 00:57
|
|
|
evilweasel posted:The non-exclusive four factors? And you would not review google's presentation to determine if the jury was ignorant on how to apply the law, you would review the jury instructions (and the appellate court was specific about what it wanted to see in the jury instructions so I assume that they were followed, they basically said 'cut and paste the sections of our opinion discussing fair use into the jury instructions'). if you want to see bad federal circuit precedent, check out Enfish v. Microsoft
|
|
#
?
May 27, 2016 01:47
|
|
|
WhiskeyJuvenile posted:if you want to see bad federal circuit precedent, check out Enfish v. Microsoft patenting a way of entering things into a table, what the gently caress jesus loving christ, impeach every member of the federal circuit
|
|
#
?
May 27, 2016 01:53
|
|
|
evilweasel posted:The non-exclusive four factors? And you would not review google's presentation to determine if the jury was ignorant on how to apply the law, you would review the jury instructions (and the appellate court was specific about what it wanted to see in the jury instructions so I assume that they were followed, they basically said 'cut and paste the sections of our opinion discussing fair use into the jury instructions'). What exactly about the federal circuit causes them to be like this?
|
|
#
?
May 27, 2016 02:15
|
|
|
The entire entry on the issues at Baylor on Wikipedia is:Wikipedia posted:In 2016, the university was investigated for a Title IX violation. Aggressive editing perhaps?
|
|
#
?
May 27, 2016 03:18
|
|
|
tekz posted:What exactly about the federal circuit causes them to be like this? A court that only deals with IP tends to attract the sorts of judges who think that IP is the greatest thing ever.
|
|
#
?
May 27, 2016 03:24
|
|
|
tekz posted:What exactly about the federal circuit causes them to be like this? It's the only thing that the Federal Circuit does. If you want favorable rulings anywhere else you have to get your concerns up to the top of a massive pile of concerns Presidents consider when picking appellate judges because those judges rule on everything. In contrast, if you care about IP, you're probably the only person waving your sizable checkbook at the President while suggesting who would be perfect for the position.
|
|
#
?
May 27, 2016 03:26
|
|
|
ulmont posted:Google won versus Oracle on the fair use defense. Unanimous jury verdict. I'd like to note that for all the "they have no case"-sayers in this thread. They have (and had, prior to the federal circuit) no case it isn't copyrightable. I don't think I ever said they had no case for fair use.
|
|
#
?
May 27, 2016 03:39
|
|
|
evilweasel posted:patenting a way of entering things into a table, what the gently caress Watching the guy from the legal department trying to somehow square the results of Enfish with everything else during training this week was pretty hilarious.
|
|
#
?
May 27, 2016 03:42
|
|
|
evilweasel posted:It's the only thing that the Federal Circuit does. If you want favorable rulings anywhere else you have to get your concerns up to the top of a massive pile of concerns Presidents consider when picking appellate judges because those judges rule on everything. In contrast, if you care about IP, you're probably the only person waving your sizable checkbook at the President while suggesting who would be perfect for the position. Yeah, that's a bunch of bullshit. It's not like there aren't non-specialist courts with far worse biases than Fed Cir (EDTX) or essentially as much experience as them (NDCal). And the nominees for the Fed Cir tend to be extremely well qualified judges overall - not sure who you think is waving a pocketbook to get a law of war/international trade expert, a trade lawyer, a former Ohio district judge, and a single parent litigator appointed to the federal circuit, because that was Obama's four appointees. Bush nominated two - a patent litigator, and a judiciary committee counsel (who is probably the most patent-skeptical judge on the circuit right now.). It's not exactly a bench full of former patent litigators. Also, Fed Cir handles a bunch of non-IP cases - trade cases being the biggest, along with a subset of CFC appeals. Just because you mostly hear about the big name IP cases doesn't mean that there isn't a huge docket you don't hear about. Patent work is only around 50-60% of their docket, iirc. (Source: all our former fed Cir clerks bitching about their horrible boring non patent cases.) E: Enfish was right about 101, but should have been invalid. 
Kalman fucked around with this message at 03:54 on May 27, 2016 |
|
#
?
May 27, 2016 03:50
|
|
|
evilweasel posted:patenting a way of entering things into a table, what the gently caress I mean it looks a lot like In re Lowry again, but I sent out a rejection about a month ago with a response to arguments saying "yeah, there's no way In re Lowry is still good law post-Alice, appeal me" and I guess I'm gonna eat crow on that one but yeah, impeach everyone WhiskeyJuvenile fucked around with this message at 05:15 on May 27, 2016 |
|
#
?
May 27, 2016 05:07
|
|
|
Kalman posted:Yeah, that's a bunch of bullshit. It's not like there aren't non-specialist courts with far worse biases than Fed Cir (EDTX) or essentially as much experience as them (NDCal). And the nominees for the Fed Cir tend to be extremely well qualified judges overall - not sure who you think is waving a pocketbook to get a law of war/international trade expert, a trade lawyer, a former Ohio district judge, and a single parent litigator appointed to the federal circuit, because that was Obama's four appointees. Bush nominated two - a patent litigator, and a judiciary committee counsel (who is probably the most patent-skeptical judge on the circuit right now.). It's not exactly a bench full of former patent litigators. Obama's had 7 Chen was great when he was with the USPTO, especially on 101 Stoll was a gimme, given her prominence and her family pedigree
|
|
#
?
May 27, 2016 05:15
|
|
|
A unanimous panel!!! what the gently caress!!! jesus christ, Enfish is just awful
|
|
#
?
May 27, 2016 05:17
|
|
|
Is this something where SCOTUS is going to overturn with a "What the gently caress are you doing, aren't you reading our rulings" type order?
|
|
#
?
May 27, 2016 06:40
|
|
|
hobbesmaster posted:Is this something where SCOTUS is going to overturn with a "What the gently caress are you doing, aren't you reading our rulings" type order? I hope so. They're probably looking for cases that don't involve whether a juvenile lesbian trying to appeal a capital conviction using evidence improperly suppressed by the prosecution is allowed to join a class action lawsuit so she can have an abortion in spite of the binding arbitration agreement she entered into when the Obama administration decided not to deport her.
|
|
#
?
May 27, 2016 07:06
|
|
|
Off topic, but will next year's cases be bland and boring because they're afraid of a 4-4 stalemate/worried about President Trump's appointee? I can't really see them taking up Abortion Union Finance laws with Scalia around.
|
|
#
?
May 27, 2016 07:11
|
|
|
Am I reading correctly that 6,151,604 is basically patenting Excel formulas with COM interop (which came out in ~93 or so) and was filed in 95 and granted in 98?
|
|
#
?
May 27, 2016 14:44
|
|
|
Which is why the lower court struck it down with that prior art.
|
|
#
?
May 27, 2016 15:23
|
|
|
|
| # ? Jun 6, 2024 11:23 |
|
|
hobbesmaster posted:Which is why the lower court struck it down with that prior art. the federal circuit struck that down too, ha ha!
|
|
#
?
May 27, 2016 16:32
|
|