Oracle v. Google: Did the jury really understand it?

Oracle v. Google: Did the jury really understand it?

Summary: Given the high level of technical complexity of these tech industry intellectual property trials, are jurors selected off the street really equipped to understand all of the intricacies?

TOPICS: Google

This morning, my friend Steven A. Shaw decided to take a very unpopular stance regarding the Oracle v. Google trial.

Also Read:

Most people who I have spoken to in the computer industry about the trial feel that Google was the stronger party in the case, and that the open sourcing of Java into GPL2 by Sun some years before heavily damaged Oracle's credibility.

While I too have to claim some bias in favor of Google, being an open source advocate myself, I still have a number of reservations about the way the trial itself was conducted, and much of it comes down to the jury selection process and some very unusual biases and lack of expertise that regular off the street folks have about the technology industry.

I've never been a juror in a trial, be it civil or criminal. But like many other people, I've had to report for Jury Duty. In the state of New Jersey in which I currently live, one gets selected typically every four years. Most of the time, you get to wait in a big room all day to see if you're going to be part of a selection process, or even more frequently, you call in that morning to see if they even want you to report to duty at all.

If you do get called in from that waiting room, you then head into an actual courtroom where the attorneys from each side begin the selection process. This process, which is referred to as voir dire, has been in use for many decades.

If you are lucky enough to get called on the stand, they ask you basic stuff like where you live, what you do for a living, and what sort of things you have experience with and even what hobbies and interests you have.

If either sides feel that you have some sort of bias -- and that could be the smallest of biases, such as admitting that you have someone in your family that works in the legal profession, or that you've ever been in a lawsuit of a similar (or dissimilar nature) or if you work in the same or a similar industry as either the plaintiff or the defense, then you can get thrown out.

As Rachel King reported this morning on Between the Lines, during the screening process of Oracle v. Google, if you had a technical background, you were excluded as a juror from this trial.

Back in the waiting room you go.

And frequently, many of the most intelligent and educated people do get thrown out, such as medical and technical professionals. Or they find ways to say the right things so they get thrown out, because being on a jury for a few weeks could very well mean losing quite a bit of money for some of these people.

The types of trials I am talking about here are typically small potatoes, 1-week civil trials. Sometimes they can be criminal in nature, and they may last more than a week after jurors are selected. Anyone, and I mean literally anyone, can end up as a juror. It could be a retired schoolteacher, or a blue collar worker. It could be a housewife who never graduated high school.

Now, one would think that these very high profile technology industry intellectual property cases would tend to select more intelligent or educated jurors, or people who at least have a basic understanding of the technology industry. But that's not the case at all.

As Steven told me when I asked him about this last night, the answer is no. That same blue collar worker or retired schoolteacher could very well end up on the same kind of case like this. Like the guy who owns the landscaping business who cuts my lawn, only takes checks, and has someone else do his computer bookkeeping for him.

Or the chimney sweep who checked for a backdraft in my house a few weeks ago who won't own something like an iPhone when I mentioned to him he could take credit cards in the field with one, because he just feels intimidated by computers. He leaves that stuff to his wife.

I'm not saying these folk are dumb people. They aren't. Heck, the chimney sweep knew natural gas boilers like nobody's business and could tell in two minutes that there was no backdraft in my utility closet.

But are people like this really prepared to understand the intricacies of software patents, the nature of Open Source and Application Programming Interfaces, source code and Java class libraries? C'mon. It's difficult enough for your average citizen to understand contract and tort law, let alone participate in something like a murder trial.

See also: Jury strikes a blow against software patentsGoogle kicks Oracle in its patent teethJury clears Google of infringing on Oracle patentsOracle v. Google jury stumbling over tech terminology, illnessCopyrights, APIs, and Oracle vs GoogleCNET: Complete trial coverage

I'm not sure even someone like myself who has over 20 years of experience in systems integration and analysis and has worked with Java and embedded devices is prepared to understand all these things, because I'm not a programmer.

Ars Technica has an interesting piece that was published yesterday about the behind the scenes jury activity in the Oracle v. Google trial. One of the things I thought was very interesting was that some of the jurors were actually put off by Google's lawyers using as evidence Sun Microsystems' CEO Jonathan Schwartz's congratulatory post which he published on his corporate blog praising Google for their launch of Android.

They felt, apparently, that "We felt like it wasn't a good business practice to rely on a blog," and that "Some of us had an underlying feeling that Google had done something that wasn't right."

That disturbs me on a number of levels -- especially that the jurors would feel was a corporate blog post written by the CEO of a major technology company shouldn't be used as evidence and that blogs were unprofessional.

To me, that displays an inherent bias that could really only be held by people who aren't familiar with how business communications are evolving, and how important blogs and extranets are for companies to project their image and their official opinion on any number of strategic matters of importance to them.

If something like an official corporate blog post didn't seem right to the jury for Google's lawyers to use as evidence, what the hell else are they missing here? I suspect a great deal more.

Are off the street jurors really equipped to understand the complexities of intellectual property litigation in the technology industry? Talk Back and Let Me Know.

Topic: Google


Jason Perlow, Sr. Technology Editor at ZDNet, is a technologist with over two decades of experience integrating large heterogeneous multi-vendor computing environments in Fortune 500 companies. Jason is currently a Partner Technology Strategist with Microsoft Corp. His expressed views do not necessarily represent those of his employer.

Kick off your day with ZDNet's daily email newsletter. It's the freshest tech news and opinion, served hot. Get it.


Log in or register to join the discussion
  • may be the case should have been tried

    from the bench and not by a jury. But then, is the judge smart enough?
    Who chose the jury vs. bench trial?
    The Linux Geek
    • jury vs. bench trial

      I believe Oracle insisted on a Jury trial. I think they figured it would be easier to bamboozle a jury.
  • Well it ended well

    I agree with you. But then doesn't an informed technically sound jury come with per-concieved biases? I know if I'd have been on the jury, I would have wondered how I could not only have the case thrown out, but how to make Oracle pay Google's legal fees! I'm not sure that I would have been swayed by anything Oracle would have said because I thought their whole case was bollocks!
    • I agree with you on the jury make up.

      though I would have sided against Google as I would have wondered whether this was another of Google's things where they go ahead and knowingly do something not really above board, coming back when caught saying 'we didn't realize'.
      William Farrel
  • Oracle v. Google: Did the jury really understand it?

    As much as I wanted to see Google lose this case, as far as the jury goes you would get a much better and more impartial verdict from them when its mixed. If you only had tech savvy jurors there would be way too much bias flying around. Basically the mixed bag of jurors have no bias and will see the common sense in the case because of their lack of understanding. It will be a lot easier for them to sort out the facts.
    Loverock Davidson-
    • You only wanted Oracle to win because you hate

      anything related to Linux ........ PERIOD ........ oh, like you would understand any better than any of those jurors ..... what a joke made my day Loverock......
      Over and Out
      • Was there a point?

        I'm trying to figure out what the point of your post was.
        Loverock Davidson-
      • Well since you have a small brain size

        ..then we need to answer that.

        Yes, there was a point. Keep figuring.
      • @Loverock

        If your only comment to SoYouSaid is "What's your point?" then you are in complete agreement with him? Thought so myself!
    • True enough, but

      excluding tech savvy jurors is its own bias. There was no-one in the jury who understands that CEO blogs are important communication tools that even folks in wall street place much credence in.
  • The flaw in your argument... assuming that if a normal person can't understand it then you can punish a party for also not understanding the law. Personally, I think if a case is so vague that you have to appeal all the way to the Supreme Court, then neither side is guilty of anything. How could they, when it takes years to determine legality? Who would expect a person to have such legal acumen to make such a decision? No, the law itself is at fault, and only smarmy legal eagles would even try and assign more importance to knife edge topics of law. If you don't want problems, write clear laws!
    Tony Burzio
    • lawyer

      It is the lawyer's job to obfuscate in favor of his client. They certainly DO NOT want an informed jury. I am pretty sure both sides are guilty of this. I think copyright laws should involve much shorter periods of time in a fast changing world of software. If you can't make a bundle in 2 or 3 years . . . shame on you. I just read about people want to copyright steak for god's sake!
      • The problem with that

        The problem with shorter copyright periods could veyr well be making it more difficult for software companies or designers to get their money back on their work. There are allot of people who do not have to get every genneration of any technology these days with how rapidly things move. Do you really think everyone working for you free stuff makes sense? People still have to make a living. Honestly that point was the one reason I was a little sympathetic towards Oracles stance. Of course their own actions kind of condemed them in my eyes...and in the juries as it happens so there you are.
  • Isn't a blog "just an opinion"?

    if the CEO says that he feels all patents are null and void at the time of a sale, that doesn't change the fact, and if another company comes in and acts on that as fact, it doesn't change anything, as that company should check with the law and regulations, as it doesn't matter what the CEo said in his blog.
    William Farrel
    • We're not talking about any average personal blog here.

      This was the official blog of the CEO on the website. And he had no such disclaimer that the opinions were his own and not of his company.
    • Obviously

      you missed the part where Sun publicly disseminated that official company communication would sometimes also come throught the CEO's personal blog therefore making it and official channel through which SUN could disclose info. Look no further than their SEC filing stating that Jonathan's blog was another official channel. SO, opinion or not does not matter, it was filed under a federal agency.
    • Not only that it was specified in the 10K.

      If it ever comes up again it will be allowed as the official opinion of Sun, imo.
    • at the very least they're more official than internal e-mails

      Oracle came up with a lot of internal e-mails in this trial.
      IMHO a company public blog, incidentally written by the CEO, is worth much more than simple e-mails.
    • Relevant Opinion

      Email, SMS, MMS, Blog, etc.. are now admissible in investigations which in turn makes them relevant as evidence in a trial.

      Besides, at his level, unless specifically stated otherwise, that is the opinion of the company.
  • oracle was doing this for apple

    Elison/jobs were dear friends and this was just a proxy lawsuit by Elison as a favor to jobs. Java is open source and so r so many other products from "sun" some of these products r in trouble coz oracle doesnt want to compete agianst its own products and in some cases have dead-ended the products