
CEO Larry Page defends Google on the stand: “Declaring code is not code” - monocasa
http://arstechnica.com/tech-policy/2016/05/ceo-larry-page-defends-google-on-the-stand-declaring-code-is-not-code/
======
coldcode
One basic travesty not covered in these comments is that a jury of people who
have zero clue what software is or how they work are being asked to judge an
entire industry on a topic they can't possibly understand. Sadly in civil
cases the concept of a jury of your peers is not a right. In reality a jury of
software engineers and the like would make more sense since they at least
understand how software is put together. But that won't ever happen in our
system because of the complexity of defining a peer in what might be an arcane
specialty (not software but other things).

~~~
alecbaldwinlol
Yes, I completely agree with the above. Litigation is handled poorly, taxation
handled poorly (federal and state), identity handled poorly (Social Security
Admin), legislation, elections, law enforcement, and these are just the things
I can think of...

At every step of the way, something or someone outside of your business can
topple your personal life and your company's life just for trying to do
business in the USA.

So you either try and deal with it, or go abroad and be labeled as something
else entirely

~~~
ccvannorman
LOL, kind of like the 18th century witch hunts where the witches cry, "If you
must burn me at the stake, at least put me to trial by jury of OTHER WITCHES!"
Imagine how that would have gone over :P

~~~
seunosewa
Bad analogy. Nobody is being punished for being software engineers.

------
metafunctor
Is it Oracle's position that all implementations of the Java APIs (or partial
implementations) are illegal, unless it's specifically allowed by Oracle?

That sounds ludicrous. What about unit testing libraries, for example?

~~~
amelius
Well, even though I don't like Oracle's standpoint here, I still feel that
often the design of an API is much more work than the implementation of it.
Implementing something is often just doing "the logical thing", whereas
designing an API requires a lot of trial and error, and planning. An API
describes in a way the greater design of the system (how things connect
together), whereas an implementation is just filling in of the details.

~~~
metafunctor
I agree that API documents (say, interface code and it's documentation) are
works that fall under copyright.

This case is more about fair use. Is Google's usage of the Java APIs fair use,
or a copyright infringement?

~~~
mikekchar
This is a very common misunderstanding of fair use. Fair use _is_ copyright
infringement. It's just a legal defence when you are being sued. This is one
of the big problems with fair use in the US. If you intend to use a fair use
defence, you will almost certainly go to court. You will not get a summary
judgement of "Oh that's obviously fair use, so we don't have to have a trial".
This means you will have to pay a lot of money for a lawyer.

Having said that, IANAL and I could easily be wrong. This is not legal advice.

The real question (which seems already to have been answered) is are APIs a
copywritable work, and if so is an implementation that follows the API a
derived work? So is it an infringement if I simply implement the API? The
original court decision said it is not an infringement, the appeal said it is
and the supreme court decided not to hear a further appeal. That's why we are
left with a fair use defence.

This is quite spectacularly bad for the industry IMHO, but there is not much
we can do about it now other than to have US citizens lobby congress to pass a
new copyright law (which seems pretty unlikely). If it turns out to be fair
use, that will make it _slightly_ less bad. However, expect rent-seekers to
start coming out of the woodwork to sue for implementations of specifications
anyway. They know that they can simply sue you for less money than it will
cost to defend yourself with a fair use defence. Expect this to be the new
patent troll.

~~~
BuckRogers
Wouldn't an Oracle win be good for Free Software? Google isn't the good guy
here, they wanted to create derivative work without GPL'ing it. Which they
considered a "virus" and "infectious". I see companies like Google trying to
have their cake and eat it too. Everyone wants to lean on someone elses work
but not use GPL or license their own as such.

It's only bad for the industry as it exists today. Tomorrow hopefully when
Oracle wins this as it appears to be a slam dunk, libre software becomes the
norm rather than the Frankenstein's monster that Android is. I would either do
it all in-house as Apple did with iOS or if you want to create a derivative
work, use GPL'd code. Google didn't want to do the hard, time consuming work
of API design. If it was the easy part, why didn't they do it?

Open and shut case in favor of Oracle. And after a rough adjustment period, I
think it will promote Free Software to new heights industry-wide when they
win.

~~~
mikekchar
Not in my opinion. The GPL is a license that depends on accepting the license
-- or not. It is always acceptable not to accept the license and write your
own. That's part of software freedom. In fact this judgement puts GNU
Classpath in a very tenuous position because their code is _also_ not based on
the the GPLed version of Java (having been written before Java was GPLed).

Even GNU is now in jeopardy because who the heck owns the copyright for
POSIX??? Is there any license language in the specification saying that you
can implement it? I have been too scared to look up until now. This is
incredibly important because all of the GNU tools and the Linux kernel have
been implemented independently and are not derivations of things like BSD.

No. This is a nightmare for free software because it means that every single
RFC in existence now needs a license thanks to copyright lasting for the life
of the author plus 95 years. It means that we can _never_ interoperate with
services that choose not to grant a license to their API. Even if you reverse
engineer it, expect a lawsuit having to defend yourself using a fair use
defence.

And if you live in most of the world that _doesn 't have fair use_. Well, you
are just screwed.

The only thing this means is that free software will be marginalized. We'll be
set back 20 years.

~~~
BuckRogers
We disagree overall. In sum, I think it's a distinct possibility free software
wins with an Oracle victory. Your position is that everything is fine and
dandy today. I disagree because otherwise this wouldn't be in court. There are
legitimate issues that need resolved, neither Google or Oracle are good guys.
Google created their own problem trying to cut corners/save money and it
backfired. They admitted in their emails it was a risk and they went for it.

But I did want to clarify one thing you said because I found it confusing.

> The GPL is a license that depends on accepting the license -- or not. It is
> always acceptable not to accept the license and write your own.

If you do use GPL code you have to also license it as GPL. Any derivative work
you create containing even a smallest portion of the previously GPL licensed
software must also be licensed under the GPL license. That's what Google meant
when they called it infectious and viral. Unfortunately for these large
corporations, it was also the solution (other than doing the heavy lifting in-
house as Apple did).

When you don't accept GPL'd code, you write your own code _and_ license (or
adopt another).

------
Udo
What's most striking to me is how easily this could have been avoided,
everybody knew what liabilities would arise from betting your entire mobile
platform on the goodwill of a competitor. With the massively overqualified
talent pool Google hoards, they could _absolutely_ have implemented a
completely new language, compiler, and VM themselves. I'm sure this
alternative must have been at least on the table. Does anyone with insider
info know what the reasoning was behind that decision?

~~~
iwwr
If anything, Google's desire to reinvent the world has held them back here.
They could have just forked OpenJDK and made their lives easier, in
retrospect. Into this went their irrational fear of GPL (describing it as
'viral' or 'infectious').

The fact remains that not even Google can reinvent the world in their image.
Building a whole new language at the same time as a legacy-prone ecosystem
requires too many moving pieces to fit together quickly. They picked some
middle ground, java allowed them to tap into the large java talent pool (then
and now). Reinventing the guts allowed their ambitious engineers to show off,
which they did, but maybe not as effectively as if they'd built on top of the
work of others.

~~~
Manishearth
> Into this went their irrational fear of GPL (describing it as 'viral' or
> 'infectious').

Why irrational? If they used the GPL, a lot more of Android would need to be
open source today, yes? Including proprietary hardware things that _can 't_ be
open sourced?

~~~
aries1980
This is not true. You could link the libraries as normal while maintaining
your proprietary code. The GPL only asks you to release the code if a) you mix
your proprietary code without separation from the GPL code b) you distribute
the software to 3rd party. b) rarely happens if you sell the device as a
closed/embedded system.

Also, they could use BSD code as well that comes with a more permissive MIT
licence.

~~~
bluesilver07
This is not true. Only the LGPL allows you to link to an open source library.
That is why OpenJDK has a classpath exception
([http://programmers.stackexchange.com/questions/119436/what-d...](http://programmers.stackexchange.com/questions/119436/what-
does-gpl-with-classpath-exception-mean-in-practice)).

GPL requires you to release the source code to the customer of your software
upon request. The person who buys the phone is the customer.

~~~
aries1980
Correct in some way. Given the source code, e.g. Drupal (GPL v2), if you
develop a proprietary module that can be shipped independently but relies on
the Drupal Core or other GPL module, you still not violate GPL. It doesn't
matter you need to compile it or not, at the end, most scripting language is
compiled to bytecode in some for of JIT.

I mentioned GPL in general, not dissecting to the various version, because the
parent reply was about Google's fear of GPL (in general).

------
ramaro
Sounds like the Linux copyright accusations SCO made against HP, RedHat, IBM,
etc... allover again. SCO is now gone.

[https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/SCO/Linux_controversies](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/SCO/Linux_controversies)

------
urza
For anyone who haven't read it yet:

Against Intellectual Monopoly
[http://levine.sscnet.ucla.edu/general/intellectual/againstfi...](http://levine.sscnet.ucla.edu/general/intellectual/againstfinal.htm)

We should abandon the patent and copyright systems as they are today, they are
doing more harm than good.

------
madiathomas
Oracle already won a case that deemed APIs copyrightable. Which is bad for the
industry at large. Except for Oracle and patent trolls off course. Google is
now arguing whether it copied code in a fair way or not. They can't argue that
they didn't copy anymore because they have already lost that case.

What is happening now is more like proving to your lecturer that you didn't
copy your whole assignment from Wikipedia. You only extracted some information
from it and majority are your own.

------
oneloop
Oooooo shit. Isn't this phrase horrible? Don't get me wrong, I think suing
over checkRange is ludicrous... but doesn't saying "declaring code isn't code"
terrible? He comes across as he's trying to avoid the issue by playing with
words. Of course declaring code is code. The clue is in the name, "declaring
CODE".

~~~
philh
> Of course declaring code is code. The clue is in the name, "declaring CODE".

This doesn't follow, sometimes language does unexpected things. E.g. a dwarf
planet isn't a planet.

~~~
cornholio
Of course code declarations are "code" the same way a library listing of book
titles is made up of "words". Unique, creative words that cannot be explained
by chance or well known to the audience before their creation by the author.
Yet, none should be protected by copyright, this is the intention of "is not
code".

~~~
asmithmd1
Your example is a good one because it is established law that book titles
can't be copyrighted.

~~~
talideon
But it can be trademarked. Still, I can't see anybody successfully managing to
apply trademark law to APIs in general.

------
felipeerias
I am curious about the implications of this lawsuit for Free SW. Claiming
copyright over the Java API is not that far from claiming copyright over a C
header, and most projects do just that.

On the one hand, RMS has said that "just using structure definitions,
typedefs, enumeration constants, macros with simple bodies, etc., is NOT
enough to make a derivative work. It would take a substantial amount of code
(coming from inline functions or macros with substantial bodies) to do that".

On the other, I imagine that somebody could get in trouble for e.g. copying
the files under linux/include and providing a proprietary implementation
underneath (unlikely scenario, you get the point).

~~~
curt15
Why does being a "derivative work" depend on the copyright status of the
original work?

~~~
felipeerias
Because Free SW licenses only apply to copyrighted works.

------
wfunction
I'm going to go out on a limb here. While I'm definitely _not_ on Oracle's
side for this case, I'm not so sure I agree with the statement that declaring
code is not code in general.

To me, that's akin to the NSA collecting phone call metadata and then claiming
that it's not really a problem because they don't actually have the contents.
Except, as we know, with sufficient metadata, you don't even _need_ contents
to figure out what's going on.

The same goes with APIs. With sufficiently comprehensive APIs or sufficiently
advanced programming language facilities, which are becoming more and more
commonplace (more sophisticated static type checking, macros, and template
metaprogramming), more and more information becomes encoded in the
declarations, to the point where you really can't claim that the declaration
isn't something you should be able to copyright. With the Java API under
consideration I agree that the APIs probably shouldn't fall under copyright,
but I'm not sure I agree with this precedent being set here more generally.

~~~
dpark
> _more and more information becomes encoded in the declarations_

I don't see how this is true at all. We've moved continually toward higher-
level APIs. There's a lot more "magic" in String.split than strtok.

If your API is so specific that the implementation is entirely implied by the
declaration, then all that means is that the implementation itself is trivial,
in which case I don't think your API implementation should copyrightable
either.

~~~
cmdkeen
But it isn't a single function definition it is the whole API. Deciding that
you want to pitch your API at a specific level of abstraction and ensuring
that level is consistently maintained across a whole language is hard work.

The recent criticisms of ASP.Net Core's API changes or PHP's "interesting"
APIs over the years surely demonstrate that writing language APIs is hard.

~~~
dpark
Sure. Coming up with a good recipe is also hard, but recipes are not
copyrightable. Difficult does not always imply copyrightable.

------
jdright
> Bicks moved on to another e-mail, which he was allowed to put up on the
> courtroom screens. The message was a note from Andy Rubin to upper
> management, laying out strategic options for Android. One option was to do a
> deal with Sun, while a second option to go ahead and use Java without a
> license, but the company would "make enemies along the way."

If it weren't for the dreaded consequences to the industry, I would love
seeing Google losing this. They well deserve with these attitude. But then I
remember their enemy is Oracle. Oh my, I will close my eyes and flip a coin...

~~~
lsaferite
You think they should lose based on them breaking a law or you would want them
to lose because you don't like them? If it's the latter I guess it's a good
thing you don't like Oracle a little more.

As you pointed out, this case had far ranging consequences for the software
industry and any personal opinions of how much you personally like or dislike
any company need to be 100% put aside.

~~~
jdright
I don't need to put nothing aside because I'm not the jury. I don't like
Google's attitude and I don't like Oracle's attitude neither. To me both
deserve to lose, but how is that possible?

No matter what the result of this will be, it will be sad. They are the worse
that can happen to software industry.

------
forrestthewoods
The more I read about this case the more I think Oracle is right. And the more
I think most people, HN readers included, are grossly misinformed.

In the last big thread I asked if anyone could provide concrete examples of
terrible things that would happen if Oracle won. I didn't get a good response
but the comment was buried. My question stands if anyone has a good answer.
I'm very open to discussion here.

~~~
keypusher
It's really not about whether bad things would happen or not. It's about what
is the correct decision. I define an interface for a box. It has methods
push() and pull(). I implement a wooden box that conforms to this interface.
Many happy users push and pull my box via the interface all day. Someone comes
along and implements a metal box that conforms to my interface, so that users
can push and pull a metal box. I sue that person and win. Does this sound
correct to you?

What bad things would happen?

* Compiling against any C header files, such as kernel headers, is called into question. This has massive ramifications because of many for-profit businesses that compile against the headers of GPL code, as is standard practice.

* Amazon S3 API is widely implemented by other cloud storage providers. Sharing an API between products makes it easy for customers to switch one application between different providers.

* This is copyright, not patent. Which means there is no requirement to register a design, no oversight and no cost.

* It could cause a rush of people just writing obvious API combinations to be the one who "got there first" and potentially harm their competition.

[https://www.publicknowledge.org/news-blog/blogs/why-you-
cant...](https://www.publicknowledge.org/news-blog/blogs/why-you-cant-
copyright-an-api)

~~~
forrestthewoods
> I sue that person and win. Does this sound correct to you?

Sure. That's plausibly reasonable. The API definition is significantly more
detailed that just the method names. The metal box maker could easily have
created their own API. But instead they use an API created by someone else.

* Compiling against headers is an important issue. That would be bad. I raised this question in the last thread but it didn't seem to be an issue.

* A closed S3 API seems fine to me. Amazon doesn't have an obligation to make switching easy. At the same time they'd have incentives to make their API open to encourage people to start using S3. Permissive open source software is exceptionally popular these days. If Amazon wants to write a closed API that presents an opportunity for someone else to write an open API.

* I think we'd be in a much better place if software could NOT be patented but APIs were copyrighted. Implementation code is already under copyright.

* I don't think "got there first" is a real concern. TCP and UDP both define connect(), send(), and receive(). But they are radically different APIs with radically different specifications.

Thank you for your thoughtful reply. This is a good discussion.

------
negamax
Can someone elucidate how these trials have access to internal email
exchanges?

~~~
takinola
It's called Discovery. When a company gets sued, the first thing the opposing
counsel does is request they provide all communications relevant to the case.
Judges tend to frown on non-compliance with such requests (e.g. shredding
papers, deleting emails, and other such similar shenanigans) and tend to send
people to jail or declare judgements against the offending party. This is one
of the reasons why you should be careful about the emails you send using
company systems. You may one day have to read it in front of a jury.

~~~
wglb
_tend to frown on non-compliance_ As in Arthur Anderson no longer exists
because someone shredded documents that were under discovery.

------
harryh
So let's say I have a file PayYourSalary.scala, and somewhere in that file
there is a method:

    
    
      def payEmployeeForOneDay(rate: Int, minutesWorked: Int = 8) = {
        // other stuff here
      }
    

As you can see, there is a bug here. This method used to have a parameter
hoursWorked with a default of 8 (a reasonable default!). But then it was
changed to minutes and someone forgot to update the default. Because of this,
some people ended up getting paid 1/60th of what they were supposed to.

That's a declaration but it certainly looks like a bug in the code to me!

Larry is being absurd.

If it's in a file with a .java extension (or .scala, or .c or even .h) it's
code. If it's source that a compiler or interpreter sucks in then it's code.

~~~
Crespyl
Your sample code is an interesting case because the nature of declarations in
Scala (among other languages) is distinct from the nature of declarations in
pure Java.

Setting a default value for an argument is an assignment, a real action that
is taken by the code at runtime. The Java equivalent would be in two (or
three, depending on how you count) parts, something like:

    
    
        // Do the things.
        // If minutesWorked is left at -1, this procedure will use the default value of 480.
        void payEmployeeForOneDay(int rate, int minutesWorked) { // inert declaration
            if (minutesWorked == -1) { minutesWorked = 8; }      // active code with bug
            // ...
        }
    

Here we have a human readable specification of behavior, which has zero impact
on the compiler or generated code, a machine readable description of an
interface for other bits of software to interact with this bit of software,
and some working code that will make something happen.

This is interesting because the specification being described and implemented
is _not_ fully encapsulated by the function declaration/API, but also by the
"non-code" english comment attached to it.

Is it fair use for me to copy this API by using the same function declaration
but rewording the documentation, but writing my own implementation of the
function body to correctly match the comment? What if I implemented a bug-
compatible version of the body from scratch, and rewrote the comment to match?

------
0xmohit
Somebody needs to analyze results from [http://patft.uspto.gov/netacgi/nph-
Parser?Sect1=PTO2&Sect2=H...](http://patft.uspto.gov/netacgi/nph-
Parser?Sect1=PTO2&Sect2=HITOFF&u=%2Fnetahtml%2FPTO%2Fsearch-
adv.htm&r=0&p=1&f=S&l=50&Query=an%2Fgoogle&d=PTXT)

What does one say of [http://patft.uspto.gov/netacgi/nph-
Parser?Sect1=PTO2&Sect2=H...](http://patft.uspto.gov/netacgi/nph-
Parser?Sect1=PTO2&Sect2=HITOFF&u=%2Fnetahtml%2FPTO%2Fsearch-
adv.htm&r=39&p=1&f=G&l=50&d=PTXT&S1=google.ASNM.&OS=an/google&RS=AN/google)

------
emeraldd
Here's an question that should pair up pretty well to the API copyright-
ability question. Is the list of words and their order in a dictionary
copyrightable?

~~~
harryh
Yes.

~~~
emeraldd
I can see the definitions being copyrightable yes, but I don't see how an
alphabetically arranged list of words (just the list) would classify as
copyrightable:

[https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Copyright_in_lists#A...](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Copyright_in_lists#Arrangement)

Hence the question ..

~~~
harryh
Hasbro has (somewhat) successfully argued that the list of Scrabble words is
copyrightable.

------
puppetmaster3
Clearly Google internally said they should license it and that they should
remove the copy righ from the code.

Right? [http://arstechnica.com/tech-policy/2016/05/top-programmer-
de...](http://arstechnica.com/tech-policy/2016/05/top-programmer-describes-
androids-nuts-and-bolts-in-oracle-v-google/)

------
codecamper
I can't really tell who isn't bothering to explain what an interface / API is
& why you might want to copy one vs make your own. Is it Larry or the writer
of this article?

If it's Larry, then it is interesting to see this sort of laziness when so
much money is at stake.

Terrible to read what a song & dance Oracle is putting on. 11,000 lines of
code! gtfo

------
d_j_b
"For me, declaring code is not code," Page said.

This sentence sounds pretty odd to me. What does Larry Page mean?

~~~
Maarten88
I think he means header files compile to nothing, they do not end up as actual
computer instructions. They only serve to help programs call the actual
implementations (which he'll see as the real code) correctly.

~~~
raphman_
I'm not sure if this interpretation of his words is what he meant to say.

I'd argue that code that "compiles to nothing" can be protected by copyright,
too, even if it is not distributed to customers. E.g., extensive documentation
inside comments in the source files is definitely copyrighted. Complex build
rules might be copyrightable, too, although they definitely end up in the
distributed application.

Therefore, it would probably be counterproductive to assert such a thing in
court.

~~~
return0
Google is trying to make the case that interfaces aren't 'code' here. That's
the entire case here, right?

~~~
raphman_
Yes. I just wanted to clarify that code that "compiles to nothing", e.g.,
build instructions, may still be copyrightable. Therefore, I do not think that
Page wanted to extend his definition of "non-code" to anything besides
interfaces/declarations.

------
77pt77
What about saying "declarative code is not code" instead?

As it stands, this title is extremely confusing.

------
rnikander
Maybe Google could spend a few billion dollars helping Oracle customers move
to PostgreSQL.

~~~
Corrado
I think if I were Google I would be moving everything I have access to non-
Oracle technologies. If that means porting Dalvik to Rust/Swift/Go then so be
it. Basically, blackball Java and suck all the air out of the room.

------
optforfon
Doe anyone know why Google decided on a jury trial? It seems they are
technically in the right, but explaining it to an educated judge in a bench
trial would be a lot easier than a random sample of non-programmers.

~~~
CPLX
Google doesn't get to decide. A plaintiff in a civil case typically has the
right to demand a trial by jury.

~~~
optforfon
Thanks! Didn't know that

------
didip
Somewhere, somebody at Google bemoaned:

I told you we should have bought Sun!

Buying Sun is literally cheaper than this lawsuit. Oracle is so ridiculous.

------
calsy
'The lawsuit began when Oracle sued Google in 2010 over its use of 37 Java
APIs, which Oracle acquired when it bought Sun Microsystems. In 2012', am I
crazy or is this just a misprint? Oracle sued Google in 2010 before they
acquired Sun Microsystems?

~~~
Morgawr
There's a period between those sentences. The "In 2012..." is related to "...a
judge ruled that APIs can't be copyrighted at all".

I don't know when Oracle bought Sun (didn't look it up), but this is not what
the sentence(s) is(are) implying.

~~~
taspeotis
The relevant sentences are:

 _The lawsuit began when Oracle sued Google in 2010 over its use of 37 Java
APIs, which Oracle acquired when it bought Sun Microsystems. In 2012, a judge
ruled that APIs can 't be copyrighted at all, but an appeals court disagreed._

Not sure what confusion could arise from this.

~~~
stuartleigh
If you miss the period it reads as "... which Oracle acquired when it bought
Sun Microsystems in 2012," which I guess would be confusing.

------
echion
Leci [API] n'est pas une code.

------
keypusher
Either Google needs some better lawyers or this article is not telling the
whole story. This should be a very simple issue to explain, open and shut
case.

------
Aleman360
Not sure if I agree. I find that coming up with good interfaces is often more
of a creative challenge than the implementation. API's are worthy of some sort
of protection since ease of use is a definite competitive advantage.

Also, you can easily screw your perf with bad interfaces (especially in C++).
E.g., not templatizing, requiring extra allocations, type impedance
mismatches, vtable bloat, etc. The interface certainly affects how the machine
executes your code.

~~~
return0
Are APIs/interfaces patentable?

~~~
punctilio
Patents have been granted on claims that essentially cover an API. I think it
would be harder to get such patents issued today than 10 years ago though.

------
codingmyway
Oracle will likely win on technical grounds regarding APIs but only because
the law is unsuited to software. It's whether a judge should overrule it on
principle of not patent trolling as it's against the public good.

It's the fact they bought Sun with the intention of suing Google in order to
profit from Android's success. If it was Sun suing it would different.

After Elon Musk pledged that other car manufacturers could use Tesla's patents
is Larry Ellison going to wait until all cars are electric and Tesla is a
minor player before buying them out and immediately turning around and suing
the entire industry?

~~~
codingmyway
The other question is what an Oracle win would do to the Java ecosytem

~~~
maze-le
That is a good question. I think short-mid term not much, as a huge amount of
infrastructure is dependent on the jmv as a platform, switching to .NET or
independent solutions is only a long-term option. I don't know how big a long-
term impact will be, but I think it won't be neglible...

------
ricksplat
_Page testified for about a half-hour, answering a lightning-fast round of
accusatory questions from Oracle attorney Peter Bicks_

It really irks me that some of these lawyers, aside from having to do their
job feel they have to be dicks about it too.

~~~
sotirisk
Well in the court a lot of theatrics are in play because of their effect on
certain questions/answers

~~~
mamon
Which is why I am against trials with jury. Professional judges are much less
likely to fall for lawyer's "bullshiting skill".

~~~
simonh
Then judges just become targets for corruption, leverage and political
capture.

~~~
ricksplat
Yep, that's the idea: You're tried by a "jury of your peers" so you can't
claim that you were fitted out by the aristocracy ... at least in theory

