GLEESON CJ: What do you mean by “free choice”?
TEHAN QC: What we mean by “free choice”, your Honour, is a choice unconstrained by any pressure, hope of advantage or benefit or force or coercion or compulsion, a true free choice.
GLEESON CJ: You would be surprised to know that there are places I would rather be than here at the moment and the psychiatrists might explain my presence at the moment by reference to a number of influences or pressures that
produce that consequence, but I thought I was here as a result of a free choice. How is that consistent with your
explanation?
HAYNE J: Good luck, Mr Tehan.
TEHAN QC: It is always a matter of degree, your Honour.
KIRBY J: I could not think of a better place to be than here.
GLEESON CJ: I am sure that is probably right.
GAUDRON J: Now, would you like to read section 80 of the Constitution, Mr Wilson?
MR WILSON: Read section 80?
GAUDRON J: Yes, that is what - and see exactly what it relates to.
MR WILSON: I will read section 80 of the Constitution. It says:
The trial on indictment of any offence against any law of the Commonwealth shall be by jury - - -
GAUDRON J: That is right, “against any law of the Commonwealth”. You are charged with contempt of court of the Supreme Court of New South Wales.
MR WILSON: Which is part of the Commonwealth.
GAUDRON J: Well, it may be part of the Commonwealth, but it deals with - - -
MR WILSON: You cannot exclude New South Wales from the Commonwealth.
GAUDRON J: - - - it deals with a distinct area of judicial power. It involves a distinct area of judicial power.
CALLINAN J: Mr Wilson, both the Commonwealth - - -
MR WILSON: I am a bit hard of hearing and I ask you to speak louder.
CALLINAN J: Both the Commonwealth and the States in Australia can make laws.
MR WILSON: And any law of a State - - -
CALLINAN J: No, no, you just listen to me for a moment - - -
MR WILSON: - - - which is inconsistent with a law of the Commonwealth is invalid under section 109.
CALLINAN J: No, Mr Wilson, you are not understanding what I am saying. They each can have laws within their own areas of power and the States have power to make laws for the regulation of the State courts, and that is, in effect, what you are charged with, breaking a law made for the regulation of proceedings in the State courts.
MR WILSON: Down in Canberra they have erect the Magna Carta monument. Have you been to see it? You will not answer? Mr Callinan, have you seen it?
CALLINAN J: Look, you cannot really ask me questions, but, yes, I did see it, Mr Wilson.
MR WILSON: Well, this is a two-way thing, you were asking me questions and I am asking you.
GUMMOW J: No, it is not a two-way thing, actually.
MR WILSON: It is not?
GUMMOW J: No.
MR WILSON: You are a dictator, are you?
GUMMOW J: No.
MR WILSON: “You just lay down and I say nothing.”
GUMMOW J: No.
MR WILSON: It is not on.
GUMMOW J: No, you are here to make your submissions on which we then rule.
MR WILSON: Yes.
GUMMOW J: We try to assist you by asking questions so that you can respond to what is on our mind.
MR WILSON: Your job - - -
GUMMOW J: Do not lecture us on what our job is, please.
MR WILSON: Your job is to ensure fairness.
GUMMOW J: No, it is not.
MR WILSON: It is not?
GUMMOW J: It is to apply justice, according to law.
MR WILSON: And what is justice? Justice is the protection of rights and the punishment of wrongs and justice is what I am after. Justice means - - -
GUMMOW J: Justice, according to law.

Context-free patent art. This is really quite excellent.
Twitter approves defensive patent strategy:
The IPA is a new way to do patent assignment that keeps control in the hands of engineers and designers. It is a commitment from Twitter to our employees that patents can only be used for defensive purposes. We will not use the patents from employees’ inventions in offensive litigation without their permission. What’s more, this control flows with the patents, so if we sold them to others, they could only use them as the inventor intended.
While it’s a nice gesture, a couple of big question marks remain: (1) it looks like only employees will actually have standing to enforce this against the company, which kind of limits its utility if they still owe parallel contractual duties to act in the best interests of their employer; and (2) the scope of “Defensive Purpose” is quite broad - it includes offensive actions against any company that has filed a patent suit within the last decade (so, almost anyone) and actions “to deter a patent litigation threat”. In other words, it might still encompass quite a lot of the tit-for-tat litigation going on between patentees wishing to negotiate more favourable licensing arrangements.
“
“Do you understand that no one owns the Java programming language?” lead counsel Robert Van Nest asked. Ellison began a longer answer, but Judge William Alsup interrupted him and said it was a “yes or no” question. Finally Ellison said, “I’m not sure.”
“And anyone can use it without royalty?” Van Nest followed up.
“I’m not sure,” Ellison said again.
Then Van Nest showed a video of Ellison receiving the same question on a deposition video and answering “That’s correct” to both.
”
- Day 2 of Oracle v Google. See more coverage on Wired.

Image of the day: Amazon book availability by decade (from a random sample of 2500). If this is representative of the wider catalogue, this paints a very troubling picture of post-copyright reprinting.

Self-represented litigant #1403: the comic book guy.

Building spilling books
David Pescovitz, boingboing.net“Biografias,” an installation by Alicia Martin at Casa de America, Madrid. “5,000 Books Pour Out of a Building in Spain” (via Imaginary Foundation)
This art installation in Madrid is simply fantastic.
“The ECJ will be asked, ‘Is ACTA in line with the existing treaties, the [shared EU common law], the European Charter of Fundamental Rights? … If the court says no to any of these things, ACTA, in my opinion, is dead.”
- The European Parliament is set to refer the Anti-Counterfeiting Trade Agreement (ACTA) to the Court of Justice, which will add to an existing reference from the European Commission. Long live the new age of rights-balancing in intermediary liability.