Slashdot Mirror

← Back to Stories (view on slashdot.org)

Courts Too Slow for 'Internet Time'?

Posted by jamie on from the right-to-a-5p33dy-7r1aL dept.

This week's New York Times Cyber Law Journal is an interesting look at whether the courts can effectively resolve questions about technology when the facts change "in internet time." If the Microsoft ruling is appealed, the earliest the Supreme Court would hear it is in 2002 - geez. We need artificial intelligence attorneys written in C. Then the first thing we do is kill-HUP all the lawyers.

7 comments

  1. Geez I'm really lame! by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    First Post!!!!! Two days now. this is fun :)

  2. Not something to be done quickly by Badger · · Score: 1

    Why exactly do we want courts to move in Internet time? It seems that the cost of I.T. is rash decisions, shoddy products, and rampant mistakes. Shouldn't deciding someone/something's future be done with due dilligence?

    1. Re:Not something to be done quickly by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Indeed - the wheels of justice grind exceeding slow, since there are many deliberately placed stumbling blocks in the path of a successful conviction. In criminal trials, the presumption of innocence is a great impediment to a quick resolution.

    2. Re:Not something to be done quickly by Lord+Omlette · · Score: 1

      I agree, but if they could just move things along a wee bit faster... I'm sure everyone here has at one point or another had to deal with the legal system's inefficiencies...
      --
      Peace,
      Lord Omlette
      AOL IM: jeanlucpikachu

      --
      [o]_O
  3. AI Lawyers? by Jim+Tyre · · Score: 1
    We need artificial intelligence attorneys written in C. Then the first thing we do is kill -HUP all the lawyers.

    Gee, Jamie, doncha just know that AI attorneys written in C would function *at least* as well as AI censorware written in (pick a language)?

    -J, your friendly neighborhood Censorware Project lawyer.

  4. Things change, so what? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    So what if things change, corporations should be punished for doing illegal things, even if those actions took place in the past (the past in internet time is further away than ever). That will teach them to play nice, or face lawsuits *years* down the road.

    Yes, it doesn't help people facing Microsoft - *NOW*, so penalties should accrue, say based on an average of IPO value, or some other net metric. And injunctions should be tossed around, relatively easily.

    -- Ender, Duke_of_URL

  5. I Agree by abcess · · Score: 1

    I couldn't agree with this more. Many of the cases that involve technology that are occuring right now will shape our lives for a long time to come. There are many legal precedents being set in regards to how law and technology will work together. I would love to see MS quickly smacked down. However, if a decision is made too quickly, what is the cost of having to go through the process again because the rules were not defined clear enough?

    Alot of us live very quickly, we love it, we thrive on it, too much down time and we may as well be dead. However, the entire world cannot function like that, and we shouldn't expect it to. There is a balance created between our world and the world of law.

    Optimally, we should continue to push for quicker decisions while recognizing that most of the time it won't (and shouldn't) happen. This will keep the legal side on it's toes and force it to change over time. At the same time, the legal side should continue to push back and resist, while realizing that, over time, change is required and inevitable. Which will keep us in check and force the products and services allowed by technology to become faster, more reliable and ultimately better for all of us. (as a side note, as that happens, alot of 'us' will wander off into other growing areas such as biotech and nanotech, though i think that's quite a ways away)