Judge In Oracle-Google Case Given Crash Course in Java 181
itwbennett writes "Lawyers for Oracle and Google gave Judge William Alsup of the U.S. District Court in San Francisco an overview of Java and why it was invented, and an explanation of terms such as bytecode, compiler, class library and machine-readable code. The tutorial was to prepare him for a claim construction conference in two weeks, where he'll have to sort out disputes between the two sides about how language in Oracle's Java patents should be interpreted. At one point an attorney for Google, Scott Weingaertner, described how a typical computer is made up of applications, an OS and the hardware underneath. 'I understand that much,' Alsup said, asking him to move on. But he had to ask several questions to grasp some aspects of Java, including the concept of Java class libraries. 'Coming into today's hearing, I couldn't understand what was meant by a class,' he admitted."
Oracle made a big mistake (Score:3, Interesting)
in letting James "Father of Java" Gosling go to Google.
In a case where the judge is learning about Java, and where testimony may be taken on the history of Java, it can't help to have its creator on the other side.
Good lawyers are fast learners (Score:5, Interesting)
Some years ago I read the final judgement in a high-tech lawsuit involving detailed understanding of the internal function of disk drives (at that time - technology had moved on). I was impressed with the level of understanding achieved by the judge in the case. The explanation of the facts of the case in the judgment amounted to a fairly good tutorial in the internals of disk drives.
In another case I knew about, the two parties jointly hired a third-part consultant to write a tutorial for the judge on the underlying technology - the parts that both parties agreed on.
I cannot obviously speak for the case in question, but my experience is that judges and trial lawyers (barristers in the UK) are pretty savvy people. The are basically trained to go from 0-60 on a new technology within a few weeks. They may not be able to be creative in the technology, but they know enough to know when they do not know enough and ask further questions.
Re:Why not ? (Score:5, Interesting)
It depends on who's doing the educating. The patent industry has done a fine job in "educating" Judges in the utility and indeed necessity of modern patent law as it is practised. Do you really want the software industry to start indoctrinating judges as well.
If the judge is unable to rule on the case, they should simply say so. If the government cannot find a judge to hear the case, then it is an overwhelmingly technical matter, not a legal one, and should be thrown out of the courts. If the government still needs to hear these cases, then they must either establish specialised courts or find some other method of dealing with them.
Far too much faith is placed in the court system by far too many. It is not the effective, impartial font of justice that many fantasise it to be. It's a creaking, rusty relic of a medieval property arbitration for the wealthy and powerful, with a criminal punishment system tacked on to protect that same property. It is failing miserably to deal with modern society, and sooner or later we're going to end up paying for it. The rise of private arbitration and legal fraud by major corporations is a symptom of how discredited rule of law by the court has become.
Re:Why not ? (Score:4, Interesting)
Don't you also have special judges for traffic related incidents?
I got a speeding ticket a few years ago. I read up on all the relevant laws and knew that while I couldn't get off, I could get the fine reduced and also not get points if the judge allowed me to do a driver ed course (online even!). I also knew that what I was asking for was quite reasonable and done all the time. So I went to court and discovered that the normal traffic judge was out for the day and there was another judge in his place. As I was early for my case, I sat there and listened to all the people ahead of me asking for the same thing that I had planned for. Yet each time the stand-in judge kept saying "I can't do that". I felt like jumping up and yelling at the judge "damn well you can - you're the judge".
The state I am in also says that there is no justification for speeding of any sort, yet this judge let off a guy who said he was speeding to get away from a truck - even though the cop who booked him said that he did not see any such truck
So the answer to your question is that (from my 1 point datum) that not only don't you have special judges, judges don't have to know the law of what they are judging
Re:Why not ? (Score:2, Interesting)
I'd say it's not even simply a question of who is doing the educating, but how much time is granted to it too.
To anyone on Slashdot they could pick up the technical intricacies of the case in fairly short time but only because they have a few years or more experience in understanding computing in general. If this judge doesn't have that prerequisite knowledge and they're trying to teach him the technical details without having time to either teach him them fully, or to teach him the background, then we risk seeing a rulling made based on a half-assed understanding of the subject.
Frankly I'm not convinced a judge should be ruling on these sorts of things without at least having gone through and succesfully completed at least a first year of a computer science degree and any prereqs he needs to reach that level. As you say, if no judge is available, then it should be postponed until one is and has gone through the required prerequisites.
There is nothing more scary than a judge ruling on something fundamental to the future of the industry with only an outline half arsed grasp of the topic at hand.