> In this specific case, it's hard to imagine an average layperson being able to grasp such concepts after a reasonable amount of instruction by experts and the judge.
Let's use the Java interface construct as an example. It's expressed as code, but is it really just code? Isn't it really a spec other classes must implement in order to become valid Java code, expressed in code for the benefit of the compiler?
1) The jury doesn't decide whether Java interfaces are protectable code versus unprotectable specifications. That's a legal determination for a judge. The judge deals in these sorts of general or philosophical principles. The jury deals in specific facts.
2) Technical distinctions aren't necessarily legally operative distinctions. The law tends to be based on things that are within typical peoples' experience.
3) You have days of peoples' undivided attention to explain things to a jury.
So in this example, the judge would be the one to decide whether Java interfaces, in principle, were protectable or not. The jury would decide things like the fact of whether Google copied Oracle's interfaces. Someone at Google might testify that they never saw Oracle's interfaces, and came up with them independently. The jury will decide whether they believe his story. They'll be shown code. They don't have to understand how it works to know whether the same variable names, etc, are being used.
1) The jury doesn't decide whether Java interfaces are protectable code versus unprotectable specifications. That's a legal determination for a judge. The judge deals in these sorts of general or philosophical principles. The jury deals in specific facts.
2) Technical distinctions aren't necessarily legally operative distinctions. The law tends to be based on things that are within typical peoples' experience.
3) You have days of peoples' undivided attention to explain things to a jury.
So in this example, the judge would be the one to decide whether Java interfaces, in principle, were protectable or not. The jury would decide things like the fact of whether Google copied Oracle's interfaces. Someone at Google might testify that they never saw Oracle's interfaces, and came up with them independently. The jury will decide whether they believe his story. They'll be shown code. They don't have to understand how it works to know whether the same variable names, etc, are being used.