> We don't like the outcome, therefore we question whether the jury knew what they were doing?
Actually, that's pretty much exactly it. An appellate court is capable of ruling a jury finding as contrary to the weight of evidence. It's basically a mistrial ruling -- that the jury did not perform as required -- and therefore permits a retrial. It's a pretty rare occurrence, though.
Specifically: "Rather, the role of the trial judge is to determine that notwithstanding all the facts, certain facts are so clearly of greater weight that to ignore them or to give them equal weight with all the facts is to deny justice."
So, the basic argument from Oracle could go something like, "The jury did not properly weight the fact that the copy was performed for commercial reasons and therefore cannot be fair use."
That's going to get messy. Very messy. It has to be crystal clear really for that to happen, but all you'd end up with is more debate on what parts have greater weight.
I don't see why it would necessarily get messy. Remember that appellate court does not accept new facts. The judges reviewing the case will do so based entirely on the facts found during the trial case and make a ruling. The only thing they would need to rule on is whether a particular fact was weighted properly by the jury. Remember, jury members are not expected to be experts of law; that's the judge's realm. So it's possible for them to misapply the law, and this process is a way to correct that.
I can certainly see an argument here that certain facts, such as commercial use, were not properly considered by the jury. Commercial use is typically a very large factor in fair use, and should receive a correspondingly heavy weighting.
Also, remember that this would merely permit a retrial. It would not be an immediate ruling for Oracle, as one normally thinks of appeal decisions. It would be a big reset button on the whole process.
You are presenting a very cynical view of the justice system and judges without any reasoning backing your claim. "Good luck with that" is not really a valid debatable response.
There's a huge backlog of fair-use cases for them to base their decision on. I don't think it would be particularly difficult or nasty in this case, given that the ability to copyright APIs was a presumed fact during the trial. Also, the judges do not all need to agree; majority vote wins. So the moment they feel that further debate is unproductive, it's time to vote and move on.
It is going to have be be very clear and something that can be ruled on in a short space of time. There is no way you can argue at all that anything clear has been missed here, or argue in clear terms how things have been weighted.
Stuff like arguing that commercial reasons haven't been weighted properly is entirely subjective, because it depends on arguing how transformative use is - and that is what has happened here. The jury have already decided on that one. The 'backlog' of fair use cases will simply throw up the same subjective issues.
An application like that to a court is not going to impress any judge one iota. You can't just wander back into court and argue "The jury has been unreasonable" without some totally solid evidence. The jury also ruled unanimously, so it wasn't even close.
And there's almost nothing crystal clear in US fair use law. I agree it seems inconceivable to argue that 'no reasonable jury' could have done just about _anything_ regarding a fair use determination. There are so few clear lines in the established law.
Actually, that's pretty much exactly it. An appellate court is capable of ruling a jury finding as contrary to the weight of evidence. It's basically a mistrial ruling -- that the jury did not perform as required -- and therefore permits a retrial. It's a pretty rare occurrence, though.
EDIT: This seems to be a good review:
http://www.litigationandtrial.com/2012/04/articles/trial/con...
Specifically: "Rather, the role of the trial judge is to determine that notwithstanding all the facts, certain facts are so clearly of greater weight that to ignore them or to give them equal weight with all the facts is to deny justice."
So, the basic argument from Oracle could go something like, "The jury did not properly weight the fact that the copy was performed for commercial reasons and therefore cannot be fair use."