Jury in Oracle v. Google finds in Google's favour

Re:Jury in Oracle v. Google finds in Google's favour by jerf on Thursday May 26, 2016 @07:59PM (#11782767)

The law would come out of Congress. I have no compelling reason to believe at this time that any candidate for this Presidential election wouldn't just sign it and move on with life. (I can read tea leaves and hypothesize as well as anyone else, but I have no real facts that leads me to believe otherwise.) If that is the case, there's very little advantage to the industry getting close to the President; all they can do is sign it, not sign it extra hard or something. Regardless I also find it unlikely that any candidate would burn political capital to push through extra hard, not that it would be necessary anyhow.

The most likely way this is going to go down is Congress is going to pass the extension again and it's going to go to the Supreme Court. I would consider the probability of any other outcome pretty low.

[ Parent | on HN ]

Re:Jury in Oracle v. Google finds in Google's favour by toyg on Thursday May 26, 2016 @08:10PM (#11782846)

> all they can do is sign it

The US legislative process lives and dies on building alliances and horse-trading. A word from the President and/or his/her promise of future help in other matters is hugely valuable. A law going through Congress and a law going through Congress with support from the President are two very different things in practice, and would be disingenuous to say that's not the case.

[ Parent | on HN ]

Re:Jury in Oracle v. Google finds in Google's favour by gnaritas on Thursday May 26, 2016 @10:41PM (#11783515)

> The US legislative process lives and dies on building alliances and horse-trading.

It used to, back in the day. That hasn't been the case for a while in today's extremely partisan environment where compromise is now a dirty word and presidential support for something makes it less likely to pass given the hostile congress that will remain even after Clinton wins.

[ Parent | on HN ]

Re:Jury in Oracle v. Google finds in Google's favour by toyg on Friday May 27, 2016 @12:00PM (#11786873)

> today's extremely partisan environment

That's all a big show on wedge issues. On topics that matter to people with money (bankruptcy laws, banking laws etc), it's just business as usual. The DMCA was passed in a similarly "partisan" environment. Don't believe the hype.

[ Parent | on HN ]

Re:Jury in Oracle v. Google finds in Google's favour by gnaritas on Friday May 27, 2016 @02:29PM (#11787907)

It isn't business as usual, this is the most unproductive congress in modern history, it's not hype, it's reality. Anecdotes about oh some things got through don't change the reality that many things that should and used to no longer can without absurd posturing battles and attempted and real shutdowns of the government.

[ Parent | on HN ]

Re:Jury in Oracle v. Google finds in Google's favour by cookiecaper on Friday May 27, 2016 @07:09AM (#11785187)

Yes. Copyright is essentially a settled political issue; both sides, as a matter of platform, seem to believe it should last as long as possible and reserve as many benefits as possible to its creators. Of course, this is not what the public believes, but since copyright legislation is usually labeled something emotionally manipulative and dishonest like "The Mickey Mouse Protection Act" and since the media has an interest in presenting that legislation in the most favorable light possible, no one ends up opposing the specific bills.

As such, all current candidates, with the possible exception of Sanders, would probably consider signing a copyright bill routine (Lessig isn't a candidate anymore).

[ Parent | on HN ]

Re:Jury in Oracle v. Google finds in Google's favour by coredog64 on Friday May 27, 2016 @10:27AM (#11786251)

This is not entirely true. Take, for example, No Child Left Behind. Bush made it an executive priority and partnered with senior members of Congress laying out what the law should look like. Same with Medicare Part D.

[ Parent | on HN ]