| |||||||||||||
No, every legal system is like thatNo, every legal system is like thatPosted May 24, 2012 14:21 UTC (Thu) by felixfix (subscriber, #242)In reply to: Google wins patent case against Oracle by eduperez Parent article: Google wins patent case against Oracle
If it were a system of rule by king, it would be luck of the draw how the king felt that morning, how his advisers felt, etc.
It all comes down to people, and anything vague is going to give vague results. The only way to avoid this kind of patent case, or the copyright case, is to avoid patents or copyrights altogether, something which would please me immensely. As clever as copyleft is, I'd rather have neither copyright nor copyleft, and have all the associated resources spent on innovation.
(Log in to post comments)
No, every legal system is like that Posted May 24, 2012 18:32 UTC (Thu) by drag (subscriber, #31333) [Link]
> If it were a system of rule by king, it would be luck of the draw how the king felt that morning, how his advisers felt, etc.
So it would be pretty much the same.
What would be ideal is 'rule by nobody'. Just voluntary contractual agreements. There really is no factual basis for any of this IP law crap.
The only defense that people can bring up for IP is either a argument economic practicality (we need copyright/patents to create markets to foster ideas), which has no factual basis (this is something that should can be demonstrably true if it a correct notion). Or a argument supporting some vague notion of 'rights' and 'fairness' over the ownership of ideas.. which is something impossible since ideas have no physical presence.
No, every legal system is like that Posted May 24, 2012 18:46 UTC (Thu) by krakensden (subscriber, #72039) [Link]
> What would be ideal is 'rule by nobody'. Just voluntary contractual agreements. There really is no factual basis for any of this IP law crap.
And when people disagreed on the meaning of those contracts, they would...
Oh right, avail themselves of a neutral third party to arbitrate. Who would have to be able to enforce that arbitration.
It doesn't matter what you do, you're going to wind up with judges.
No, every legal system is like that Posted May 24, 2012 18:46 UTC (Thu) by felixfix (subscriber, #242) [Link]
You seem to be arguing several things at once: the evils of IP, the evils of government, and the evils of third party judgements.
I will address third party judgements.
You suggest completely voluntary contractual agreements. What if the parties disagree?
*Someone* has to be an independent judge, even if it is just those who consider doing business with any of the parties to a disagreement, and people will differ, which is fine. But in practice, few individuals would want to investigate and fully inform themselves of all disagreements by all parties with whom they might consider doing business; they will instead rely on third parties, whether that be a coercive central government or a voluntary distributed system of judgement (whether friends or service bureaus), and then you are right back to people making judgement calls.
And this is all pretty off-topic, but I suppose that too is a judgement call.
No, every legal system is like that Posted May 25, 2012 6:46 UTC (Fri) by eduperez (guest, #11232) [Link]
> If it were a system of rule by king, it would be luck of the draw how the king felt that morning, how his advisers felt, etc.
I would prefer a system of rule by law... well thought and written laws.
No, every legal system is like that Posted May 25, 2012 7:43 UTC (Fri) by felixfix (subscriber, #242) [Link]
Everything -- *EVERYTHING* -- comes down to judgement by people. No matter how well you think you have crafted a law, people judge them, words change meaning, society changes, things change.
You cannot get away from judgement by people. The oceans will evaporate before you get rid of judgement by people.
No, every legal system is like that Posted May 25, 2012 9:27 UTC (Fri) by mpr22 (subscriber, #60784) [Link] The codifiers of the law, be they absolute monarchs, elected representatives, or the entire citizen class of the society governed by the law, are people.
No, every legal system is like that Posted May 26, 2012 12:16 UTC (Sat) by SecretEuroPatentAgentMan (guest, #66656) [Link]
Interesting then that the US based its legal system on common law, inherited from a country based on a fairly strong monarchy, moreso when many left Europe in dissatisfaction with the conditions there.
Laws can be well thought out and well written at the time, yet will fail as the world evolves and can also be incorrectly applied. There is also the law of unintended consequences. Many countries have specialised courts or specialised judges to take care of IPR-related cases, even so an appeal will often show that the law was incorrectly applied. Also the same laws can be applied by the supreme courts in different countries and come to opposite conclusions.
Most of the European countries have acceded to the European Patent Convention (EPC). The European Patent Office (EPO), operating under EPC, runs seminars for Europe's top judges. Even so you still get totally different conclusions. Now the European Union is considering a centralised patent court. Unless something changes dramatically it will only mean you get to throw the dice once in Europe rather than once for each EU member state.
|
|||||||||||||