3 ms·

While not optimal most of the best patent lawyers work for companies that have a lot of patents and often are the best legal experts to ask opinions/judgements

by doikor 4y ago

While not optimal most of the best patent lawyers work for companies that have a lot of patents and often are the best legal experts to ask opinions/judgements from. Obviously if a case actually touches a company they work for (or worked for recently) they should abstain from the case.

denton-scratch 4y ago
While not optimal, most of the best criminal defence lawyers work for criminals, so we should appoint them to preside over criminal trials.
- deleted 4y ago
  [deleted]
- ethbr0 4y ago
  You make a good point... provided sufficient separation can be established between their own cases and those they're presiding over. (And yes, I realize it was sarcasm, but if you don't think it's a good idea, then offer reasons why not)
  - denton-scratch 4y ago
    The question of how court officials should be appointed seems to me rather fraught. Direct appointment by the executive? Um, US Supreme Court. Popular election? Do you want to be judged by someone running for election? Judicial Appointments Commission? This is the system used in the UK; the Commission recommends, and then some senior lawyer, often a cabinet minister, decides. That's pretty close to appointment by the executive. I'm not in favour of putting foxes in charge of chicken-coop security. [Edit] I didn't really mean it to be sarcastic (i.e. cutting flesh). I was just trying to show where that reasoning leads.
    - ethbr0 4y ago
      I think of it as a general democratic problem: finding an expert, unbiased, uncorruptible person for below market rate. If we had an infinite supply of those, democratic staffing would be a solved problem. But we don't, and every other solution involves trade-offs. Do you increase the risk of corruption in exchange for increased expertise, by sourcing staff from industry? Or do you decrease the risk of corruption at the expense of less expertise, by banning pre/current/post industry exposure? The judiciary option boils down to a punt, by creating an alternative profession vertical (judicial) that someone can live and progress in... to shield them from influence while making decisions in other areas. But then you have the appointment problem, especially vis lifetime appointments. The "interested parties" Supreme Court model seems the best way to split the difference to me, where technical experts can offer technical arguments, without having any ability to judge. But that presupposes the judge can understand the points being made.
Attrecomet 4y ago
It's corruption, pure and simple. "Not optimal" and then giving an excuse is a pretty sad reaction to (government sanctioned!) private justice by corporations as a weapon against any smaller competitor.

by doikor 4y ago

denton-scratch 4y ago

While not optimal, most of the best criminal defence lawyers work for criminals, so we should appoint them to preside over criminal trials.

deleted 4y ago
[deleted]
ethbr0 4y ago
You make a good point... provided sufficient separation can be established between their own cases and those they're presiding over. (And yes, I realize it was sarcasm, but if you don't think it's a good idea, then offer reasons why not)
- denton-scratch 4y ago
  The question of how court officials should be appointed seems to me rather fraught. Direct appointment by the executive? Um, US Supreme Court. Popular election? Do you want to be judged by someone running for election? Judicial Appointments Commission? This is the system used in the UK; the Commission recommends, and then some senior lawyer, often a cabinet minister, decides. That's pretty close to appointment by the executive. I'm not in favour of putting foxes in charge of chicken-coop security. [Edit] I didn't really mean it to be sarcastic (i.e. cutting flesh). I was just trying to show where that reasoning leads.
  - ethbr0 4y ago
    I think of it as a general democratic problem: finding an expert, unbiased, uncorruptible person for below market rate. If we had an infinite supply of those, democratic staffing would be a solved problem. But we don't, and every other solution involves trade-offs. Do you increase the risk of corruption in exchange for increased expertise, by sourcing staff from industry? Or do you decrease the risk of corruption at the expense of less expertise, by banning pre/current/post industry exposure? The judiciary option boils down to a punt, by creating an alternative profession vertical (judicial) that someone can live and progress in... to shield them from influence while making decisions in other areas. But then you have the appointment problem, especially vis lifetime appointments. The "interested parties" Supreme Court model seems the best way to split the difference to me, where technical experts can offer technical arguments, without having any ability to judge. But that presupposes the judge can understand the points being made.

Attrecomet 4y ago

It's corruption, pure and simple. "Not optimal" and then giving an excuse is a pretty sad reaction to (government sanctioned!) private justice by corporations as a weapon against any smaller competitor.