decoration decoration
Stories

GROKLAW
When you want to know more...
decoration
For layout only
Home
Archives
Site Map
Search
About Groklaw
Awards
Legal Research
Timelines
ApplevSamsung
ApplevSamsung p.2
ArchiveExplorer
Autozone
Bilski
Cases
Cast: Lawyers
Comes v. MS
Contracts/Documents
Courts
DRM
Gordon v MS
GPL
Grokdoc
HTML How To
IPI v RH
IV v. Google
Legal Docs
Lodsys
MS Litigations
MSvB&N
News Picks
Novell v. MS
Novell-MS Deal
ODF/OOXML
OOXML Appeals
OraclevGoogle
Patents
ProjectMonterey
Psystar
Quote Database
Red Hat v SCO
Salus Book
SCEA v Hotz
SCO Appeals
SCO Bankruptcy
SCO Financials
SCO Overview
SCO v IBM
SCO v Novell
SCO:Soup2Nuts
SCOsource
Sean Daly
Software Patents
Switch to Linux
Transcripts
Unix Books

Gear

Groklaw Gear

Click here to send an email to the editor of this weblog.


You won't find me on Facebook


Donate

Donate Paypal


No Legal Advice

The information on Groklaw is not intended to constitute legal advice. While Mark is a lawyer and he has asked other lawyers and law students to contribute articles, all of these articles are offered to help educate, not to provide specific legal advice. They are not your lawyers.

Here's Groklaw's comments policy.


What's New

STORIES
No new stories

COMMENTS last 48 hrs
No new comments


Sponsors

Hosting:
hosted by ibiblio

On servers donated to ibiblio by AMD.

Webmaster
Well that OR ... Google made a mistake. | 439 comments | Create New Account
Comments belong to whoever posts them. Please notify us of inappropriate comments.
Trial by combat
Authored by: Anonymous on Monday, May 14 2012 @ 02:06 PM EDT
I think we should throw out this legal system and go back to trial by combat.

I want to see lawyers with swords, in an arena, trying to stab each other to
death. Two lawyers enter, only one leaves.

Not only would it be more humane than the current system (for the rest of us),
but it would be a lot cheaper and quicker.

And probably deliver better justice, too.

[ Reply to This | Parent | # ]

reminds me about losing due to not appealing something that was WON!
Authored by: nsomos on Monday, May 14 2012 @ 02:59 PM EDT
I am glad that PJ wrote ...
"Sometimes the law and logic diverge, as you may have noticed."

It reminds me of the time when either IBM or Novell
had actually won something, but they did NOT appeal
what they had won, and that this later came back to bite them.

There is no way that should make sense .. but there it is.
It happened.

[ Reply to This | Parent | # ]

Courts need resident experts for technical cases
Authored by: PolR on Monday, May 14 2012 @ 03:23 PM EDT
It must be standard procedure that in a technical case a court appointed expert
is present and allowed to intervene on any factual issues and to answer
questions. We need someone who will ensure nobody will try to bamboozle laymen,
judges and juries, with technical nonsense without risking being called out by a
neutral third party who knows better. We need an officer of the court
permanently present to fulfill this function. When the judge or jury has
technical questions like the ones judge Alsup so often sent, the resident expert
should be allowed to answer along with the parties.

I know, such resident expert is not provided for by the rules of civil
procedure. But they are badly needed.

[ Reply to This | Parent | # ]

I though there was something in the jury instructions
Authored by: Anonymous on Monday, May 14 2012 @ 03:23 PM EDT
Saying that if a witness was not telling the truth on one
issue, the rest of their testimony could be viewed with
suspicion.

[ Reply to This | Parent | # ]

Van Nest joking around
Authored by: Anonymous on Monday, May 14 2012 @ 03:25 PM EDT
Ginny LaRoe ‏ @GinnyLaRoe
Van Nest's not shy about throwing in a little joke or sarcasm
with Alsup. And Alsup doesn't seem to mind. #BobWillBeBob

[ Reply to This | Parent | # ]

I was thinking much the same
Authored by: Anonymous on Monday, May 14 2012 @ 03:35 PM EDT

I could just imagine an "expert" claiming:

    The Law of Gravity does Not Exist!
The defense Lawyer argues:
    As the Law of Gravity does not exist, my client had no reason to believe the person he pushed would fall from the 30 story building!
And because the prosecution thought such an argument was so totally ridiculous that it didn't deserve to be dignified with a combating expert....

The Jury rules the defendant guilty and the Law overrules the Jury!

RAS

[ Reply to This | Parent | # ]

Well that OR ... Google made a mistake.
Authored by: SilverWave on Monday, May 14 2012 @ 03:43 PM EDT
If that's the rules then Google's Lawyers are paid to know how to play the
game.

But then you never really know if this is a mistake or part of a plan...

Or

They may be moves or strategies that have not been been revealed yet...

Its like a multi level chess game played on boards the size of football fields,
one in which the rules can be changed or reinterpreted and are.

Oh and the result of the game is not final and can be appealed.

A terrible terrible system, but not as bad as all the others ;-)

---

Note: Don’t go there with Poker v Chess stuff.


---
RMS: The 4 Freedoms
0 run the program for any purpose
1 study the source code and change it
2 make copies and distribute them
3 publish modified versions

[ Reply to This | Parent | # ]

Groklaw © Copyright 2003-2013 Pamela Jones.
All trademarks and copyrights on this page are owned by their respective owners.
Comments are owned by the individual posters.

PJ's articles are licensed under a Creative Commons License. ( Details )