5 ms·

now explain how that is different from anywhere in the world...

by gcb0 12y ago

bjornsteffanson 12y ago
It's not different, and I believe that was the point. There is a weird stereotype that I've encountered about Sweden that I wasn't aware of until the first time I lived outside of our country...whenever something like this comes along, there's a notion that some people think "Oh it's Sweden, they'll do the right thing," as if our laws or courts are somehow "more right" or "more just" than others. I think what the preceding comment was trying to point out is that that is not always true.
- jbaptiste 12y ago
  That's very true. In Europe, Sweden is in our minds like one of the two or three countries where everything seems to be "good". Economics are good, people are nice, unemployment seems low and somehow those countries act as "The goods and respectables guys from the north". That's a very common feeling in EU.
  - PhantomGremlin 12y ago
    Don't forget the "babes". When I think of Sweden I think of http://www.people.com/people/elin_nordegren/ http://www.people.com/people/elin_nordegren/
  - meowface 12y ago
    The same sentiment is held by many in the US. Sweden, Denmark, and Norway are viewed as more modern and civilized societies.
- renaudg 12y ago
  This is indeed the good image that Sweden has for more southern Europeans. Although the whole Assange case has shown that even there, politics can be stronger than justice.
jeltz 12y ago
That Swedish courts do not have to worry about how evidence is obtained. It can always be used.
rayiner 12y ago
In the U.S., you have strict evidentiary rules and the opportunity to get expert testimony into the record. If the judge doesn't know HTTP from UDP, you get a Stanford PhD expert witness to explain it. If your opponent mischaracterizes the distinction, you comb over the transcripts and get your expert to submit a declaration picking apart each instance of mischaracterization. Everything goes in a voluminous record that is dissected on appeal.[1] In my opinion, in the U.S., courts rarely get technology straight-up wrong. What technologists call "not understanding technology" is usually more an artifact of judges not sharing the same values. I.e. just because a judge understands the difference between a torrent and the actual file doesn't mean they're going to be sympathetic to an "information wants to be free" attitude towards copyright. [1] Of course, this is one reason litigation in the U.S. is so expensive and time-consuming.
- WildUtah 12y ago
  "... in the U.S., courts rarely get technology straight-up wrong." Except, of course, the patent courts -- the Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit and their pet district courts in East Texas. In those courts the judges have a personal career interest in how technology is regulated by the patent system. The result is that judges are competent but motivated to use reasoning to reach personally beneficial conclusions rather than ones rooted in objective law and reason. That's why software patents keep expanding and more tech savvy judges just keep making them expand more when you might think they would keep them under control.
  - pdabbadabba 12y ago
    > personal career interest Quite an accusation, but I have no idea what you could be referring to. What's the interest? It can't just be that they need to keep the patents flowing for the sake of job security, since they already have life tenure...
  - harryh 12y ago
    The breadth of software patents isn't expanding, it's contracting.
dogma1138 12y ago
It's not, but depending on the country not every judicial system has the same weird regulations as the US one. For example hearsay, evidence without a clear chain of custody, and many other things that would be thrown out of a US court are accepted in most other western countries. The Judges know how to deal with that evidence and under which circumstances except it or not, some one lost a tag on an evidence bag doesn't really scares them, the evidence came from an "unofficial" source, as long as it's credible they'll take it in and so on.

now explain how that is different from anywhere in the world...

by gcb0 12y ago

now explain how that is different from anywhere in the world...

It's not different, and I believe that was the point. There is a weird stereotype that I've encountered about Sweden that I wasn't aware of until the first time I lived outside of our country...whenever something like this comes along, there's a notion that some people think "Oh it's Sweden, they'll do the right thing," as if our laws or courts are somehow "more right" or "more just" than others. I think what the preceding comment was trying to point out is that that is not always true.

jbaptiste 12y ago
That's very true. In Europe, Sweden is in our minds like one of the two or three countries where everything seems to be "good". Economics are good, people are nice, unemployment seems low and somehow those countries act as "The goods and respectables guys from the north". That's a very common feeling in EU.
- PhantomGremlin 12y ago
  Don't forget the "babes". When I think of Sweden I think of http://www.people.com/people/elin_nordegren/ http://www.people.com/people/elin_nordegren/
- meowface 12y ago
  The same sentiment is held by many in the US. Sweden, Denmark, and Norway are viewed as more modern and civilized societies.
renaudg 12y ago
This is indeed the good image that Sweden has for more southern Europeans. Although the whole Assange case has shown that even there, politics can be stronger than justice.

jeltz 12y ago

That Swedish courts do not have to worry about how evidence is obtained. It can always be used.

rayiner 12y ago

In the U.S., you have strict evidentiary rules and the opportunity to get expert testimony into the record. If the judge doesn't know HTTP from UDP, you get a Stanford PhD expert witness to explain it. If your opponent mischaracterizes the distinction, you comb over the transcripts and get your expert to submit a declaration picking apart each instance of mischaracterization. Everything goes in a voluminous record that is dissected on appeal.[1] In my opinion, in the U.S., courts rarely get technology straight-up wrong. What technologists call "not understanding technology" is usually more an artifact of judges not sharing the same values. I.e. just because a judge understands the difference between a torrent and the actual file doesn't mean they're going to be sympathetic to an "information wants to be free" attitude towards copyright. [1] Of course, this is one reason litigation in the U.S. is so expensive and time-consuming.

WildUtah 12y ago
"... in the U.S., courts rarely get technology straight-up wrong." Except, of course, the patent courts -- the Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit and their pet district courts in East Texas. In those courts the judges have a personal career interest in how technology is regulated by the patent system. The result is that judges are competent but motivated to use reasoning to reach personally beneficial conclusions rather than ones rooted in objective law and reason. That's why software patents keep expanding and more tech savvy judges just keep making them expand more when you might think they would keep them under control.
- pdabbadabba 12y ago
  > personal career interest Quite an accusation, but I have no idea what you could be referring to. What's the interest? It can't just be that they need to keep the patents flowing for the sake of job security, since they already have life tenure...
- harryh 12y ago
  The breadth of software patents isn't expanding, it's contracting.

dogma1138 12y ago

It's not, but depending on the country not every judicial system has the same weird regulations as the US one. For example hearsay, evidence without a clear chain of custody, and many other things that would be thrown out of a US court are accepted in most other western countries. The Judges know how to deal with that evidence and under which circumstances except it or not, some one lost a tag on an evidence bag doesn't really scares them, the evidence came from an "unofficial" source, as long as it's credible they'll take it in and so on.