I have been an attorney at law for 20 year, so I think I can deal with the situation with some strength.
firstly, most lawyers know little but the law. they read the charge and if it's hard, look it up and then apply the PRINCIPLES to it.
They never dig their heads out into RL or VR to see what it is that is being dealt with--it's just Charge (n) = ingredients (x) so if you were charged with murder, it's either self defence, not me, accident or insanity. No matter who murders who where or when that's the box it fits in--prosecutors prove it is not self defence while def. counsel try to prove it it, etc.
When it moves to tech 99.99% of all lawyers don't know jack. A few can turn on computers by themselves and actually point and click.
they no more see the reality of something like the DVD scene as beyond the black/white. X says Y infringed their right, therefore prove Y infringed or prove Y did not.
It is fortunate there are a couple of judges who do understand the tech or in not understanding err on the side of innocence because they don't have a clue what guilty would look like.
In Jamaica there are really only two lawyers, myself and Bladerunner who know the tech, (he's a programer as well with his own company, so he's definately in the Nerd/Geek category. I'm the other one.
Sadly, too few people realise that when it's a tech case, whether the *&&^ phone company claiming that bypass is trespass, or an ISP claiming the monopoly phone company has used its market dominance position, the lawyers hired are the run of the mill mouth for hire, so the issues don't make it to the fore.
Too many lawyers will take any case for the money. causing a distinct difficulty in telling them from garden variety whores.
As long as we know the tech and as long as non-lawyer geeks have the guts to push--we will win.
One mistake we made was letting Kevin Mitnick rot in jail so long. We must not let hacking/cracking whatever replace drug offenses as the bogeyman.
my brother, except for the grace of Jah there goes I. I was about to buy this puppie when I read an article on Slashdot. I phoned the in-house geek at the local thinkpad emporium and told him that I requested he check with his masters at the great Blue Box in the Big Supermarket. He told me, and I quote--"IBM DOES NOT CERTIFY THIS THINKPAD TO RUN WITH LINUX." So either I buy it and use the wonderful '98 or I don't--hard choices.
let me tell you what crap this is. I was set to buy this puppie when I asked the rep to contact headoffice to confirm. I was told that IBM DOES NOT CERTIFY THIS MODEL TO RUN LINUX. I was told because I'm a lawyer and you know the next step.
Slashdot Mirror
I have been an attorney at law for 20 year, so I think I can deal with the situation with some strength.
firstly, most lawyers know little but the law. they read the charge and if it's hard, look it up and then apply the PRINCIPLES to it.
They never dig their heads out into RL or VR to see what it is that is being dealt with--it's just Charge (n) = ingredients (x)
so if you were charged with murder, it's either self defence, not me, accident or insanity. No matter who murders who where or when that's the box it fits in--prosecutors prove it is not self defence while def. counsel try to prove it it, etc.
When it moves to tech 99.99% of all lawyers don't know jack. A few can turn on computers by themselves and actually point and click.
they no more see the reality of something like the DVD scene as beyond the black/white. X says Y infringed their right, therefore prove Y infringed or prove Y did not.
It is fortunate there are a couple of judges who do understand the tech or in not understanding err on the side of innocence because they don't have a clue what guilty would look like.
In Jamaica there are really only two lawyers, myself and Bladerunner who know the tech, (he's a programer as well with his own company, so he's definately in the Nerd/Geek category. I'm the other one.
Sadly, too few people realise that when it's a tech case, whether the *&&^ phone company claiming that bypass is trespass, or an ISP claiming the monopoly phone company has used its market dominance position, the lawyers hired are the run of the mill mouth for hire, so the issues don't make it to the fore.
Too many lawyers will take any case for the money.
causing a distinct difficulty in telling them from garden variety whores.
As long as we know the tech and as long as non-lawyer geeks have the guts to push--we will win.
One mistake we made was letting Kevin Mitnick rot in jail so long. We must not let hacking/cracking whatever replace drug offenses as the bogeyman.
my brother, except for the grace of Jah there goes I. I was about to buy this puppie when I read an article on Slashdot. I phoned the in-house geek at the local thinkpad emporium and told him that I requested he check with his masters at the great Blue Box in the Big Supermarket.
He told me, and I quote--"IBM DOES NOT CERTIFY THIS THINKPAD TO RUN WITH LINUX."
So either I buy it and use the wonderful '98 or I don't--hard choices.
let me tell you what crap this is.
I was set to buy this puppie when I asked the
rep to contact headoffice to confirm.
I was told that IBM DOES NOT CERTIFY THIS MODEL
TO RUN LINUX.
I was told because I'm a lawyer and you know the
next step.