|
|
|
| Authored by: PolR on Tuesday, May 22 2012 @ 02:37 PM EDT |
I think it is because the system expects good faith about objectively verifiable
facts. Lawyers aren't suppose to lie and mislead in court. If they can't agree
on objective questions of technology what does it say on the good faith of the
lawyers?
Subsidiary question: where is the bogofilter which would allow Alsup to find out
the liar and penalize him in a way that will be sustained on appeals?
[ Reply to This | Parent | # ]
|
| |
| Authored by: Anonymous on Tuesday, May 22 2012 @ 02:57 PM EDT |
Because we are talking pretty straight technological questions not open to
significant amount of interpretation.
In a court case, lawyers are expected to give a spin to the truth, and it is the
jury's job to sort out the spin.
But the starting point here is the truth, and the constant disagreement between
lawyers means that the jury is not treated to the truth.
It is not really the job of the judge to tell the story to the jury. It is the
job of the witnesses, lawyers, and experts. And they are not giving different
views to the same story: they are giving different stories.
Stretching the truth is different from ignoring the truth.[ Reply to This | Parent | # ]
|
| |
| Authored by: jez_f on Tuesday, May 22 2012 @ 04:13 PM EDT |
I think he is annoyed at the colossal waste of court time for something that
could have been negotiated years ago. Especially as an appeal is
inevitable.
I also think that is why he is leaning in oracles direction for some things, to
reduce their grounds for appeal.[ Reply to This | Parent | # ]
|
| |
| Authored by: Anonymous on Tuesday, May 22 2012 @ 07:49 PM EDT |
If the consequences weren't so serious, this sort of thing would be great fodder
for a comedy. Supposedly, cases should be determined by a jury of peers. If that
were so, the jury for this case would be loaded with software developers and
engineers. With no disrespect to the unwilling conscripts on this jury, this one
like so many others are simply not able of understanding the material being
presented to them. They are being made to make an important decision without the
necessary background understanding to achieve it. No one should be put in this
position.
Added to this, they are getting technical advice from lawyers who not only share
the jurors' inate ignorance on matters technical, but are more predisposed to
answering questions with their clients spin than giving them a simple, cold,
factual answer. The only one who seems to have a shred of technical
understanding is the judge who is not in a position where he can use that
understanding to help.
Think about it - is it right for a group of people who obviously do not even
understand the basic relationship between a stack and the underlying memory to
be deciding a case based on the nuances of symbolic reference resolution? How
much faith could one really have in whatever outcome such a case produces?[ Reply to This | Parent | # ]
|
|
|
|
|
