4 ms·

Laws aren't god given. They are to be interpreted or even ignored by anyone who finds themselves in the legal system. Thats why jury nullification exists, and t

Laws aren't god given. They are to be interpreted or even ignored by anyone who finds themselves in the legal system. Thats why jury nullification exists, and thats why judges have jobs. At the end of the day it's just humans making decisions about other humans and if your firm belief is not in line with the law you have the opportunity to express that.

josephlord 14y ago
Jury nullification Yes (its a form of direct democracy). Judges making up the law No (its an undemocratic attack on the rule of law). Interpretation of ambiguities is one thing but just ignoring parts is not OK. It would leave everyone with no rules to follow just different judges with different views to persuade in each case. If there is a real disagreement between law and what the judge thinks is right they should rule in favour of the law (but grant sanctions etc. as close to just as possible). He/she can then publicly complain about the law or run for congress to change it. Please note that I am in favour of what the Judge has said but think that if his ruling stands it is a big change in the law and it is the wrong way to do that.
- jbooth 14y ago
  Marbury v Madison? Striking down laws has been one of the court's recognized powers for quite a while..
  - josephlord 14y ago
    I'm not American and although I've just read the Wikipedia article on that case I don't think I fully understand it or it's relevance as it seems only to apply when they conflict with the constitution which I don't believe is the case here and is a different matter entirely in my view. If party A has a valid patent party B must license or work around. I don't understand why it would be just for party A to have to prove actual damages. That they have been denied license fees OR elected not to license to retain exclusivity is surely evidence it self of damage. Had the judge taken one look at the patents and declared them obvious and lacking novelty And given the Patent Office an earful I would fully have approved but to me he seems to have said even valid patents are only enforceable in limited conditions which should be set out in law.

josephlord 14y ago

Jury nullification Yes (its a form of direct democracy). Judges making up the law No (its an undemocratic attack on the rule of law). Interpretation of ambiguities is one thing but just ignoring parts is not OK. It would leave everyone with no rules to follow just different judges with different views to persuade in each case. If there is a real disagreement between law and what the judge thinks is right they should rule in favour of the law (but grant sanctions etc. as close to just as possible). He/she can then publicly complain about the law or run for congress to change it. Please note that I am in favour of what the Judge has said but think that if his ruling stands it is a big change in the law and it is the wrong way to do that.

jbooth 14y ago
Marbury v Madison? Striking down laws has been one of the court's recognized powers for quite a while..
- josephlord 14y ago
  I'm not American and although I've just read the Wikipedia article on that case I don't think I fully understand it or it's relevance as it seems only to apply when they conflict with the constitution which I don't believe is the case here and is a different matter entirely in my view. If party A has a valid patent party B must license or work around. I don't understand why it would be just for party A to have to prove actual damages. That they have been denied license fees OR elected not to license to retain exclusivity is surely evidence it self of damage. Had the judge taken one look at the patents and declared them obvious and lacking novelty And given the Patent Office an earful I would fully have approved but to me he seems to have said even valid patents are only enforceable in limited conditions which should be set out in law.