4 ms·

Not to nitpick, because I agree, but I think it's a more accurate to say "litigation doesn't work like that" or "lawyers don't work like that". I was under the

by chao- 15y ago

Not to nitpick, because I agree, but I think it's a more accurate to say "litigation doesn't work like that" or "lawyers don't work like that". I was under the impression that it's less a specific law which spells out the liability, but rather a patchwork of regulation and court cases that leave a company with so much uncertainty that the only intelligent choice is to cover your ass any-which-way that you can. My impression (and it is merely that) comes from today's earlier discussion on liability, regulations and compliance: http://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=3889512 http://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=3889512

Karunamon 15y ago
I've been using this quote over and over the past month and this seems a good occasion as any: Lawyers fucking ruin everything. That really sums up pretty much everything wrong with this whole system.
- JamesLeonis 15y ago
  While I don't necessarily disagree, that's like saying hackers ruin everything. What do lawyers (hackers) do but try to find weaknesses in the current law (program) and exploit them? We haven't figured out how to make perfectly secure systems that are still usable, so why do we expect our laws to be any more robust?
- micks56 15y ago
  I'm not defending the legal field in its entirety, but your opinion would change if you or your loved one were harmed or killed.
  - Karunamon 15y ago
    My loved ones are smart enough to not dick around with life sustaining hardware and software. On a less snarky note, it's absurd that I can't do what I want with something I bought and paid for, whether that be a game console or a breathing mask. It's not the law's job to protect me from myself. And I say lawyers ruin everything because the legal profession has a vested interest in keeping the lay person from being able to understand and use the law effectively. including such idiocy as the OP's scenario.
    - Retric 15y ago
      Having actually been in that situation; I respectfully disagree.
    - Cushman 15y ago
      > And I say lawyers ruin everything because the legal profession has a vested interest in keeping the lay person from being able to understand and use the law effectively. This may be true, but it is not the reason law is hard for the lay person to understand. Western legal theory has taken "justice" to mean that, given the same facts, and irrespective of the personal opinions of the judge or jury, the court should reach the same decision. Just think about that for a second-- it's not an easy problem. In fact it's a fabulously difficult problem, even before you add the condition that the system should remain fair over time in excess of a human lifespan. The (clearly sub-optimal) solution we've arrived at over the past few thousand years is basically to implement an enormous natural-language virtual machine in which individual agents (lawyers) execute programs (laws) using a very precisely-defined instruction set (legal jargon) which is very similar in structure to English. The reason the laws cannot be written in English is that English has natural ambiguities; this is fine for conversation, but is absolutely unacceptable when human freedom or livelihood is on the line. The obvious downside is that it means that average citizens can actually not learn the law simply by reading the law. To mitigate that, we've constructed an execution context in which a separate lawyer represents each interested party, with a judge acting as a neutral third party present to represent the interests of the law. The jury is asked only to establish the facts; understanding of the law is not required. It's really all pretty clever. Obviously it's not perfect. But, before you criticize the system wholesale, remember that law didn't always work this way. Time was you would just take your grievance before the king, and depending on if he was feeling merciful or surly or liked your family, you would either get what you wanted or not. If you were lucky, there would be rhyme or reason to the king's judgments, and you might be able to predict what he'd say. If not, well... sucks to be you. The complexity of the law, the cost of employing full-time legal scholars for every interaction, and the occasional abuses of the system-- these are the price we pay for fairness. I'm not saying I think lawyers are awesome, but a world without them would be a hell of a lot worse than most people think.
      - 15y ago
micks56 15y ago
Not totally accurate. There isn't much uncertainty in the law, but rather whether you broke it. Plaintiff has the burden of proof. And while there may not be a specific statute spelling out liability, case law has equal wait in the US. Here is an example. This is a common 3 part test used to decide whether a manufacturer is liable for failure to warn: 1. Manufacturer had actual knowledge of the alleged danger 2. Manufacturer had no reason to know that consumers would know of this danger. 3. Manufacturer failed to exercise reasonable care to inform customers of the danger.
- chao- 15y ago
  ...case law has equal weight in the US. That is what I meant to express, and I stand corrected on the details.

by chao- 15y ago

Karunamon 15y ago

I've been using this quote over and over the past month and this seems a good occasion as any: Lawyers fucking ruin everything. That really sums up pretty much everything wrong with this whole system.

JamesLeonis 15y ago
While I don't necessarily disagree, that's like saying hackers ruin everything. What do lawyers (hackers) do but try to find weaknesses in the current law (program) and exploit them? We haven't figured out how to make perfectly secure systems that are still usable, so why do we expect our laws to be any more robust?
micks56 15y ago
I'm not defending the legal field in its entirety, but your opinion would change if you or your loved one were harmed or killed.
- Karunamon 15y ago
  My loved ones are smart enough to not dick around with life sustaining hardware and software. On a less snarky note, it's absurd that I can't do what I want with something I bought and paid for, whether that be a game console or a breathing mask. It's not the law's job to protect me from myself. And I say lawyers ruin everything because the legal profession has a vested interest in keeping the lay person from being able to understand and use the law effectively. including such idiocy as the OP's scenario.
  - Retric 15y ago
    Having actually been in that situation; I respectfully disagree.
  - Cushman 15y ago
    > And I say lawyers ruin everything because the legal profession has a vested interest in keeping the lay person from being able to understand and use the law effectively. This may be true, but it is not the reason law is hard for the lay person to understand. Western legal theory has taken "justice" to mean that, given the same facts, and irrespective of the personal opinions of the judge or jury, the court should reach the same decision. Just think about that for a second-- it's not an easy problem. In fact it's a fabulously difficult problem, even before you add the condition that the system should remain fair over time in excess of a human lifespan. The (clearly sub-optimal) solution we've arrived at over the past few thousand years is basically to implement an enormous natural-language virtual machine in which individual agents (lawyers) execute programs (laws) using a very precisely-defined instruction set (legal jargon) which is very similar in structure to English. The reason the laws cannot be written in English is that English has natural ambiguities; this is fine for conversation, but is absolutely unacceptable when human freedom or livelihood is on the line. The obvious downside is that it means that average citizens can actually not learn the law simply by reading the law. To mitigate that, we've constructed an execution context in which a separate lawyer represents each interested party, with a judge acting as a neutral third party present to represent the interests of the law. The jury is asked only to establish the facts; understanding of the law is not required. It's really all pretty clever. Obviously it's not perfect. But, before you criticize the system wholesale, remember that law didn't always work this way. Time was you would just take your grievance before the king, and depending on if he was feeling merciful or surly or liked your family, you would either get what you wanted or not. If you were lucky, there would be rhyme or reason to the king's judgments, and you might be able to predict what he'd say. If not, well... sucks to be you. The complexity of the law, the cost of employing full-time legal scholars for every interaction, and the occasional abuses of the system-- these are the price we pay for fairness. I'm not saying I think lawyers are awesome, but a world without them would be a hell of a lot worse than most people think.
    - 15y ago

micks56 15y ago

Not totally accurate. There isn't much uncertainty in the law, but rather whether you broke it. Plaintiff has the burden of proof. And while there may not be a specific statute spelling out liability, case law has equal wait in the US. Here is an example. This is a common 3 part test used to decide whether a manufacturer is liable for failure to warn: 1. Manufacturer had actual knowledge of the alleged danger 2. Manufacturer had no reason to know that consumers would know of this danger. 3. Manufacturer failed to exercise reasonable care to inform customers of the danger.

chao- 15y ago
...case law has equal weight in the US. That is what I meant to express, and I stand corrected on the details.