verdict присяжных [контескт: судья сказал присяжным исходить из предположения что API copyrightable]

    1. a. yes [Has Oracle proven that Google has infringed the overall structure, sequence and organization of copyrighted works?]
    1. b. unanswered.

    2. documentation. no [As to the documentation for the 37 Java API packages in question taken as a group: A. Has Oracle proven that Google has infringed?]

    3. [Has Oracle proven that Google’s conceded use of the following was infringing, the only issue being whether such use was de minimis:]
    a. yes, infringing. [The rangeCheck method in TimSort.java and ComparableTimSort.Java]
    b. no, not infringing. [Source code in seven “Impl.java” files and the one “ACL” file]
    c. english language comments, no, not infringing [The English-language comments in CodeSourceTest.java and CollectionCertStoreParameters Test.java]

    4. a. yes [A. Has Google proven that Sun and/or Oracle engaged in conduct Sun and/or Oracle knew or should have known would reasonably lead Google to believe that it would not need a license to use the structure, sequence, and organization of the copyrighted compilable code?]
    b. no. [B. If so, has Google proven that it in fact reasonably relied on such conduct by Sun and/or Oracle in deciding to use the structure, sequence, and organization of the copyrighted compilable code without obtaining a license?]