4 ms·

In the interests of demonstrating a harsh penalty for judicial overreach, I would like to see this case made, and Apple abandon the market. I don't know the Br

by chasil 5y ago

In the interests of demonstrating a harsh penalty for judicial overreach, I would like to see this case made, and Apple abandon the market. I don't know the British system well enough to understand what reaction public opinion would have on members of parliament, but some censure of the judge and reversal of the patent decision could happen.

ben_w 5y ago
Even as a Brit, I don’t feel that I understand the British system, though from everything post 2016 I’ve reached the conclusion that neither does the current British government, and therefore they may well censure the judges even though the judges are supposed to be independent. Or they might do nothing, because Apple isn’t a British company and they want to help Amstrad take over its market share.
- mjburgess 5y ago
  The judiciary isnt supposed to be independent. That is the american system. In the UK all power is held by parliament and extends from parliament.
  - ben_w 5y ago
    The power may flow from parliament, but the judiciary is still (supposed to be) independent: • https://www.judiciary.uk/about-the-judiciary/the-judiciary-the-government-and-the-constitution/jud-acc-ind/independence/ https://www.judiciary.uk/about-the-judiciary/the-judiciary-t... • https://www.judiciary.uk/announcements/swearing-in-of-the-new-lord-chancellor-the-rt-hon-robert-buckland-qc-mp/ https://www.judiciary.uk/announcements/swearing-in-of-the-ne...
    - mjburgess 5y ago
      That is a different sense of the word "independent" than the American "separation of powers" one.
      - ben_w 5y ago
        Does that make a difference? What I said was they are “supposed to be independent” in the broader context of saying the politicians shouldn’t censure the judges, but might anyway.
  - sofixa 5y ago
    Judicial independence is a mainstay of most democratic countries ( separation of powers in general).
  - zabzonk 5y ago
    Parliament writes the laws - the judiciary interprets & implements them, as in all other democracies that I'm aware of.
  - M2Ys4U 5y ago
    That's not strictly true. It's the Crown that is the font of all power. Parliament legislates as the Crown in Parliament - hence the mace must be present in the chambers while Parliament is sitting and all bills must receive royal assent to become Acts of Parliament. There also exist powers that are (currently) outwith Parliament - namely the royal prerogatives. The court system is similar, courts derive their power from the Crown, although, of course, they are subject to statute passed by Parliament.
  - michaelt 5y ago
    I don't know why this is being downvoted; compared to the US system, the UK system doesn't implement anywhere near the same amount of separation of powers. As you can read about in sources like [1] While judges in the UK have life tenure and aren't allowed to stand for parliament, judges are constitutionally subordnate to parliament - they can't challenge the validity of acts of parliament. And separation of executive and legislature is essentially nonexistent: Getting the support of a majority in parliament makes you the prime minister - and the first-past-the-post system makes it very common that a single party will control a majority of the seats. [1] https://researchbriefings.files.parliament.uk/documents/SN06053/SN06053.pdf https://researchbriefings.files.parliament.uk/documents/SN06...
    - mjburgess 5y ago
      To add to your comment, The executive is staffed by members of the lower house. Until recently the head of the courts were from the upper house. So the lower house provided the executive, and the upper provided the courts. Compared to constitutional systems like the US, the UK is basically still in the same position. There is no "constitution" that the legal system forces parliament to adhere to. Our courts simply enforce acts and "send them back" to parliament only when there are inconsistencies. I actually regard the creation of the supreme court here in the UK a pretty silly thing, it should've reminded with the upper house. Either way, it isnt independent in the US sense.
      - deleted 5y ago
        [deleted]
- arethuza 5y ago
  "I don’t feel that I understand the British system" Probably doesn't help that there isn't a single UK-wide legal system... Edit: There are 3 or 4 legal systems in the UK depending on how you count them: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Law_of_the_United_Kingdom#Three_legal_systems https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Law_of_the_United_Kingdom#Thre...
denton-scratch 5y ago
In any of the British jurisdictions, neither parliament nor the government can dismiss judges. Nor can anyone else. If they displease the government, then they might not be chosen to head lucrative judicial inquiries - I think that's the only sanction that government can inflict on them. Neither government nor parliament can "reverse" a patent decision. Government and parliament have been known to "censure" (criticise) judicial decisions; usually that behaviour provokes a negative reaction among educated people and thoughtful newspapers. It doesn't happen often. The government can also appeal against sentence in crimnal cases, if they think the sentence was unduly lenient. This is fairly recent statute legislation, and controversial.
- mjburgess 5y ago
  > neither parliament nor the government can dismiss judges This is wholly untrue. Parliament can do what it pleases, including disestablish the judiciary and the executive.
  - denton-scratch 5y ago
    You're right, it can do what it pleases; it has been known to behead a monarch. But it still can't dismiss a judge, because Parliament doesn't employ the judges.
  - pjc50 5y ago
    This is technically true but kind of irrelevant? If it comes down to that level of radical transformation, of abolishing the judiciary, the state is on its way to disintegrating. Rather like the Royal power that exists only as long as it's not used.

by chasil 5y ago

ben_w 5y ago

Even as a Brit, I don’t feel that I understand the British system, though from everything post 2016 I’ve reached the conclusion that neither does the current British government, and therefore they may well censure the judges even though the judges are supposed to be independent. Or they might do nothing, because Apple isn’t a British company and they want to help Amstrad take over its market share.

mjburgess 5y ago
The judiciary isnt supposed to be independent. That is the american system. In the UK all power is held by parliament and extends from parliament.
- ben_w 5y ago
  The power may flow from parliament, but the judiciary is still (supposed to be) independent: • https://www.judiciary.uk/about-the-judiciary/the-judiciary-the-government-and-the-constitution/jud-acc-ind/independence/ https://www.judiciary.uk/about-the-judiciary/the-judiciary-t... • https://www.judiciary.uk/announcements/swearing-in-of-the-new-lord-chancellor-the-rt-hon-robert-buckland-qc-mp/ https://www.judiciary.uk/announcements/swearing-in-of-the-ne...
  - mjburgess 5y ago
    That is a different sense of the word "independent" than the American "separation of powers" one.
    - ben_w 5y ago
      Does that make a difference? What I said was they are “supposed to be independent” in the broader context of saying the politicians shouldn’t censure the judges, but might anyway.
- sofixa 5y ago
  Judicial independence is a mainstay of most democratic countries ( separation of powers in general).
- zabzonk 5y ago
  Parliament writes the laws - the judiciary interprets & implements them, as in all other democracies that I'm aware of.
- M2Ys4U 5y ago
  That's not strictly true. It's the Crown that is the font of all power. Parliament legislates as the Crown in Parliament - hence the mace must be present in the chambers while Parliament is sitting and all bills must receive royal assent to become Acts of Parliament. There also exist powers that are (currently) outwith Parliament - namely the royal prerogatives. The court system is similar, courts derive their power from the Crown, although, of course, they are subject to statute passed by Parliament.
- michaelt 5y ago
  I don't know why this is being downvoted; compared to the US system, the UK system doesn't implement anywhere near the same amount of separation of powers. As you can read about in sources like [1] While judges in the UK have life tenure and aren't allowed to stand for parliament, judges are constitutionally subordnate to parliament - they can't challenge the validity of acts of parliament. And separation of executive and legislature is essentially nonexistent: Getting the support of a majority in parliament makes you the prime minister - and the first-past-the-post system makes it very common that a single party will control a majority of the seats. [1] https://researchbriefings.files.parliament.uk/documents/SN06053/SN06053.pdf https://researchbriefings.files.parliament.uk/documents/SN06...
  - mjburgess 5y ago
    To add to your comment, The executive is staffed by members of the lower house. Until recently the head of the courts were from the upper house. So the lower house provided the executive, and the upper provided the courts. Compared to constitutional systems like the US, the UK is basically still in the same position. There is no "constitution" that the legal system forces parliament to adhere to. Our courts simply enforce acts and "send them back" to parliament only when there are inconsistencies. I actually regard the creation of the supreme court here in the UK a pretty silly thing, it should've reminded with the upper house. Either way, it isnt independent in the US sense.
    - deleted 5y ago
      [deleted]
arethuza 5y ago
"I don’t feel that I understand the British system" Probably doesn't help that there isn't a single UK-wide legal system... Edit: There are 3 or 4 legal systems in the UK depending on how you count them: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Law_of_the_United_Kingdom#Three_legal_systems https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Law_of_the_United_Kingdom#Thre...

denton-scratch 5y ago

In any of the British jurisdictions, neither parliament nor the government can dismiss judges. Nor can anyone else. If they displease the government, then they might not be chosen to head lucrative judicial inquiries - I think that's the only sanction that government can inflict on them. Neither government nor parliament can "reverse" a patent decision. Government and parliament have been known to "censure" (criticise) judicial decisions; usually that behaviour provokes a negative reaction among educated people and thoughtful newspapers. It doesn't happen often. The government can also appeal against sentence in crimnal cases, if they think the sentence was unduly lenient. This is fairly recent statute legislation, and controversial.

mjburgess 5y ago
> neither parliament nor the government can dismiss judges This is wholly untrue. Parliament can do what it pleases, including disestablish the judiciary and the executive.
- denton-scratch 5y ago
  You're right, it can do what it pleases; it has been known to behead a monarch. But it still can't dismiss a judge, because Parliament doesn't employ the judges.
- pjc50 5y ago
  This is technically true but kind of irrelevant? If it comes down to that level of radical transformation, of abolishing the judiciary, the state is on its way to disintegrating. Rather like the Royal power that exists only as long as it's not used.