|
|
|
|
|
|
by maz20
4037 days ago
|
|
|
DOJ is not a court but it is a "high official" (or "official body"). What I was stating was that the "higher you go" -- in terms of official government bodies, whether they're courts, or something else -- the less competent I would expect them to be. You can simply say,
1) "Oracle owns Java"
2) "APIs are part of Java"
3) "Google uses Java APIs"
4) Therefore, "Google uses something Oracle owns" so Oracle should win this case Now of course, you can apply some deeper logic to uphold Google's stance. But that's the problem --- how "far" or how "deeper" do you expect the higher courts to look into this issue? Deep enough to understand Google's position? |
|
|
You could, but neither CAFC nor DoJ did, so that's irrelevant.
> Now of course, you can apply some deeper logic to uphold Google's stance.
Or you could apply deeper logic and still uphold Oracle's stance. Now, I tend to think the District Court decision here was more correct than the CAFC decision (or the DoJ position), but I don't think as a legal decision its as clearly correct as some people would like to claim -- even though its also the outcome I prefer independent of what is correct under the current law.
> But that's the problem --- how "far" or how "deeper" do you expect the higher courts to look into this issue?
Fairly deeply on the legal side -- that's what appellate courts exist to do, and they are generally fairly good at it (though they do fail spectacularly at times, but not worse than trial courts, though with higher courts they get more attention for it) -- perhaps less so on the factual side (again, this is by design -- and why appellate courts often resolve legal disputes and send the factual matters back to the trial courts to resolve given the legal clarification.)
> Deep enough to understand Google's position?
I don't think the CAFC or DoJ failed to understand Google's position. Disagreement isn't the same thing as lack of understanding.