Originally Posted by branlr
I totally understand what you are saying, but with analogy, it is easy to obscure reality.
The oil industry is a different case entirely. There are no laymen who are oil-drilling in their free time, because it is such a resource-intensive activity. This means that experts are also industry insiders.
On the other hand, you have programming. This is an activity engaged in by millions of people, many of whom are extremely knowledgeable amateurs.
The issue is not whether expertise creates a bias. Obviously, if actually KNOWING THE SUBJECT MATTER creates a bias, it will only be a bias towards the truth, and it is as it should be. An example of this is the fact that pretty much all scientists are biased towards the belief in evolution. To allow less knowledgeable people to dictate what our children study in school in the name of "being fair" is outrageous, but it is a more proper analogy for what you are arguing than the oil industry.
The question here is of professional and financial interests.
Since there are thousands of people who study programming in general that could serve on such a jury who are totally un-invested in Java or Android, we should pursue these people to serve on our juries.
We must decide as a society to refuse the notion that ignorance is a form of perspective.
It is not.
What children study in school is not a legal matter.
...also, again... how do you ensure an unbiased programmer on the topic of API? How do you ensure unbiased [something] on the topic of [something]? On the flipside, how do you define and ensure a knowledgeable "enough" person on any topic? You cannot and the legal system would be reduce to lawyers arguing over the bias/knowledge of juries for all cases.
Besides, reality is reality. A few hundred years of working millions of examples demonstrate the legal system works. It is not perfect but it works.
Again, the jury is educated on the software before the arguments were heard. It is in the best interest of the both sides and the courts that they had a working understanding of the issues.
Originally Posted by jrbroad77
This isn't the type of stuff a jury trial should be determining. Maybe if they think Java somehow "stole" part of their API, but there's no precedent on API being copywritten soooo... to the Supreme Court it is. The reason jury trials work with murder cases and such is, there's established precedent. Premeditated with malice aforethought, 1st degree. 2nd degree is just with malice, etc. The only other point to prove is whether the defendant is competent. Everything else is the jury using it's logic. Here, the jury is jumping the gun, in that they don't necessarily know whether or not borrowing parts of an API is legal. Being that as the point of contention, and without precedent affirming such, it's going to at least go to a state Supreme Court.
Jury trials work in other patent cases.....
They were instructed NOT to define if "fair use" was legal.Edited by DuckieHo - 5/10/12 at 7:26am