4 ms·

By that standard, every court case has "no net productive output." Should we disband the legal system?

by monochromatic 14y ago

theklub 14y ago
Yes, it needs a reboot at least.
- monochromatic 14y ago
  Why do you say?
  - snowwindwaves 14y ago
    Lawmakers don't refactor the laws like programmers refactor their programs. Laws get more and more complex with more and more bolt on patches. Times change but they don't get updated. There Are so many laws it is impossible to know if you are breaking one or not. http://unclibertarians.com/are-you-breaking-the-law/ http://unclibertarians.com/are-you-breaking-the-law/ Laws are designed by committee. We know how that works out for programming projects. I think the volume of laws could be significantly reduced and laws could be simplified, but the law making process doesn't allow it. Ianal.
    - rayiner 14y ago
      The law is "refactored" all the time. That's one of the tremendous virtues of the common law process. And while the law is designed by committee, it is applied in any given case by a single judge which has insight into the actual issues in play. Again, a tremendous virtue of the common law process.
praxeologist 14y ago
Your statement is a strawman. They just mean patent cases, not every case conceivable between two corporations. I would agree with them because intellectual "property" qua property is bogus. The essential nature of what is claimed as property by IP law: patterns, ideas, techniques is that they are not scarce goods versus things like your body or your car. How should we define "legal productivity"? I think that it should be measured by making victims whole and CMU was not deprived of anything by Marvell using the same pattern. The focus on arbitrary jail time and fines paid to government versus restoring victims is one thing which needs to be rebooted. Another is the tragedy of the commons situation with free and open access to courts. This creates a long queue for trials and simply drawing out a case which has no merit is used as a weapon itself. If justice was a service being paid for and we implement a loser-pays doctrine, as has always been the case in common law, we wouldn't see a lot of these patent cases, besides the fact that IP cannot exist without a state to grant the monopoly.
- monochromatic 14y ago
  That's not what "strawman" means. And I know that he just meant patent cases... the problem is that the criticism he used applies to all cases. That was my whole point. > CMU was not deprived of anything by Marvell using the same pattern CMU was deprived of a reasonable royalty under the law. What does being made whole mean if not being granted what the law guarantees? > The focus on arbitrary jail time and fines paid to government versus restoring victims is one thing which needs to be rebooted. This has nothing to do with patent cases. Are you saying criminal law also needs a reboot? > If justice was a service being paid for and we implement a loser-pays doctrine, as has always been the case in common law, we wouldn't see a lot of these patent cases, besides the fact that IP cannot exist without a state to grant the monopoly. I have no idea what you're trying to get at here. Loser-pays has some advantages, but it also has some serious disadvantages. As for IP requiring a state to grant the monopoly, I don't think anyone has ever claimed otherwise, and it has nothing to do with loser-pays. I'm just confused by your comment.

By that standard, every court case has "no net productive output." Should we disband the legal system?

theklub 14y ago

Yes, it needs a reboot at least.

monochromatic 14y ago
Why do you say?
- snowwindwaves 14y ago
  Lawmakers don't refactor the laws like programmers refactor their programs. Laws get more and more complex with more and more bolt on patches. Times change but they don't get updated. There Are so many laws it is impossible to know if you are breaking one or not. http://unclibertarians.com/are-you-breaking-the-law/ http://unclibertarians.com/are-you-breaking-the-law/ Laws are designed by committee. We know how that works out for programming projects. I think the volume of laws could be significantly reduced and laws could be simplified, but the law making process doesn't allow it. Ianal.
  - rayiner 14y ago
    The law is "refactored" all the time. That's one of the tremendous virtues of the common law process. And while the law is designed by committee, it is applied in any given case by a single judge which has insight into the actual issues in play. Again, a tremendous virtue of the common law process.

praxeologist 14y ago

Your statement is a strawman. They just mean patent cases, not every case conceivable between two corporations. I would agree with them because intellectual "property" qua property is bogus. The essential nature of what is claimed as property by IP law: patterns, ideas, techniques is that they are not scarce goods versus things like your body or your car. How should we define "legal productivity"? I think that it should be measured by making victims whole and CMU was not deprived of anything by Marvell using the same pattern. The focus on arbitrary jail time and fines paid to government versus restoring victims is one thing which needs to be rebooted. Another is the tragedy of the commons situation with free and open access to courts. This creates a long queue for trials and simply drawing out a case which has no merit is used as a weapon itself. If justice was a service being paid for and we implement a loser-pays doctrine, as has always been the case in common law, we wouldn't see a lot of these patent cases, besides the fact that IP cannot exist without a state to grant the monopoly.

monochromatic 14y ago
That's not what "strawman" means. And I know that he just meant patent cases... the problem is that the criticism he used applies to all cases. That was my whole point. > CMU was not deprived of anything by Marvell using the same pattern CMU was deprived of a reasonable royalty under the law. What does being made whole mean if not being granted what the law guarantees? > The focus on arbitrary jail time and fines paid to government versus restoring victims is one thing which needs to be rebooted. This has nothing to do with patent cases. Are you saying criminal law also needs a reboot? > If justice was a service being paid for and we implement a loser-pays doctrine, as has always been the case in common law, we wouldn't see a lot of these patent cases, besides the fact that IP cannot exist without a state to grant the monopoly. I have no idea what you're trying to get at here. Loser-pays has some advantages, but it also has some serious disadvantages. As for IP requiring a state to grant the monopoly, I don't think anyone has ever claimed otherwise, and it has nothing to do with loser-pays. I'm just confused by your comment.