Could someone re-explain this to me? I just don't get it. I don't know anything about law. Especially:
> Were his ultimate ruling that the general "structure, sequence and organisation" is not protectable to be reversed on appeal, the higher court might simply reinstate his jury's verdict. This gives the appeals court more alternatives as it need not worry about an expensive retrial.
Had he told the jury "API's are not copyrightable", and the jury found Google guilty, and then he ruled later "API's are really not copyrightable" then he would have set aside the jury verdict of guilty.
Then, had his ruling of "API's are not copyrightable" been reversed, the jury guilty verdict would have been reinstated.
Going this route, the jury's decision is independent of the finding of "can API's be protected by copyright" because the jury found no guilt while assuming that API's could be protected. So even if the judge's decision of "no copyright on API's" is reversed, the jury's verdict of not-guilty remains, because it was made by assuming "API's can be protected by copyright".
the jury decided on some details assuming the law supports oracle. the judge decided the law did not support oracle. but if the judge's decision is reversed then the jury decision can be used without needing to go through the process of a whole new jury trial.
The previous article on the subject explains what "structure, sequence and organisation" means for copyright, patents and APIs: http://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=4050490 (and the first comment by grellas is also highly recommended)
> Were his ultimate ruling that the general "structure, sequence and organisation" is not protectable to be reversed on appeal, the higher court might simply reinstate his jury's verdict. This gives the appeals court more alternatives as it need not worry about an expensive retrial.