| |||||||||||||
Google guilty of infringement in Oracle trial; future legal headaches loom(ars technica)Google guilty of infringement in Oracle trial; future legal headaches loom(ars technica)Posted May 10, 2012 15:31 UTC (Thu) by ajross (subscriber, #4563)In reply to: Google guilty of infringement in Oracle trial; future legal headaches loom(ars technica) by nye Parent article: Google guilty of infringement in Oracle trial; future legal headaches loom (ars technica)
> What was the point of asking the question in the first place if everyone already agrees on the answer?
Because it's a court case, not a debate, and courts have rules. Among them is the requirement that issues of fact (like whether or not infringement occurred) must be decided by a Jury.
You seem to be upset that the question was "unfair". Of course it was: facts aren't fair, they're just facts. No one sane would have found otherwise. But the Jury still had to issue a finding.
(Log in to post comments)
Google guilty of infringement in Oracle trial; future legal headaches loom(ars technica) Posted May 14, 2012 10:27 UTC (Mon) by nye (guest, #51576) [Link]
>You seem to be upset that the question was "unfair". Of course it was: facts aren't fair, they're just facts. No one sane would have found otherwise. But the Jury still had to issue a finding.
I think you have me confused for somebody else. I'm not upset at all; I'm just trying to understand the point of this - I wasn't previously aware that facts which are not in dispute still had to be decided by a jury (in this country we wouldn't even have a jury in this case).
|
|||||||||||||