Law Documents in a Nutshell 97
Ramakrishnan M writes "LawMeme has a two part article (more to come) on reading and interpreting Legalese for geeks, titled "Law School in a nutshell". Here is the Part 1 and part 2"
This discussion has been archived.
No new comments can be posted.
Law Documents in a Nutshell
Related Links Top of the: day, week, month.
There's no sense in being precise when you don't even know what you're talking about. -- John von Neumann
IANAL (Score:2)
Re:Look out (Score:2)
bleh ~.~ (Score:1)
Re:bleh ~.~ (Score:2)
--
If you think it makes you sick, just try that ugly little line they start off with - #!usr/bin/legal - in a bash script.
Try it as root. Watch your machine e-mail Linus, asking him to sue you for "Trademark abuse, irreparable harm and emotional damages".
Soko
Re:bleh ~.~ (Score:1)
Don't be too harsh. Unlike you, the article actually gave me a bit of deja-vu. It was like the feeling I had when I was 15 years old and for the first time the gibberish ... err.. source code in K&R
suddenly made sense. It was a wonderful feeling! An
AHA moment!
I want more of this!
IAAL (Score:4, Informative)
Re:IAAL (Score:1)
so wait.... you're saying that you, a lawyer, *are like* 1% of the crap you read here!
refreshingly honest!
HEADLINE: (Score:3, Funny)
Re:HEADLINE: (Score:1)
Ok, I've found out who *really* wrote this. (Score:2)
Clearly this was a collaborative effort of Dan Gookin, original author of DOS and C "for Dummies," and Mr. Rogers, of the Mr. Rogers fame. You think a 15-year old posing as a lawyer is odd? How about 6 year old dummies (the logical mixture of the two audiences)?
Flamewars... (Score:2)
VI RULES!
That should do. *runs for cover*
Re:Flamewars... (Score:2, Funny)
Normally I wouldn't deign to respond to such an obvious troll.
Vi is an antiquated, modal, slow, non-indexed, non-inuitive, spell-check lacking, ill formatted, no-in-program help file, auto-save-lacking, non-predicatable, case sensitive, clumsy, non-wysiwyg, template-less, graphic-less, THAT HITLER liked to use on Small children and DOGS!
What do I use?
Why, the toggle switches on the front of the computer, you young-whipper-snapper! (flip flip flip flip flip flip flip flip --- FLICK (Load-and-Increment)
(BTW: Quirk's Exception to Godwin's Law applies here.)
Silly moderator (my post gets OT and existensial) (Score:2)
Uhh... I'm not entirely sure how to read that, but I choose to believe that it means that this comment started out at 2 and got knocked down to 1 Troll.
Why? What's the point of modding down? It should be obvious the poster is playing out the ancient vi vs. \non_vi_editor/(1) *for fun*.
I bet the moderater doesn't even know what the heck the poster's talking about when he says, "Quirk's Exception to Godwin's Law applies here." Of course, I don't either! But I'm not gonna go modding down things I don't understand.(2)
Footnote 1: It's supposed to be "vi vs EMACS", but since vi is so weird, I think a person could argue vi vs. just about any other editor. (For the record, I don't really care for vi or EMACS too much. Although, I suppose I may one day familiarize myself with vim.)
Footnote 2: It's sort of like what Tegan said to the Master: "This'll teach you not to meddle in things you don't understand!" And, of course, that is just one example of the more general sci-fi principle summed up so eloquently by Joel Robinson when he says of some random mad scientist: "He tampered in God's domain." And, of course, all this goes back to the Tower of Babel and/or the Tower Struck By Lightning tarrot card.
(oh btw, one last thing--today I found out that the commercial for Millyways ("If *you've* done six impossible things this morning...") is very similar to something the white queen says in "Alice In Wonderland" (warning, quote may not be exact): "I've found that, with practice, I can believe at least six impossible things before breakfast." It's a happy day.
Law School in a Nuthouse? (Score:2)
A couple of minor things...... (Score:5, Interesting)
XXX U.S. XXXX (19XX): That's the official citation of a case. Often, if you go into a library, you won't find an official reporter (and you probably wouldn't want the official reporter, anyway). Lexis and West Publishing put out what are called unofficial reporters, the Lawyer's Edition (L.Ed.) and....I can't remember the other one at the moment IIRC (Supreme Court Reports). These have all sorts of annotations that lead you to other important info regarding the case, or cases cited within the decision. Sometimes in the decision itself, if you're not familiar with a case that's cited by the writer, you won't understand the argument. Some judges are especially obtuse (think writing code without good comments).
The Brief:
Here's the thing....the brief is far from the full story when considering a case. The brief puts one side's best spin on the case. It's designed to be persuasive, as well as being informative. Both sides submit them, blah blah blah. But, especially in cases before the Supreme Court, other factors come into play. A well-written amicus brief can have quite a bit of influence; even if the two parties involved do not solicit it, nor endorse it.
After the all the briefs are submitted, the justices hear oral arguments, where they're free to clarify things that don't make sense.
In a sense, the briefs discussed in this article are Release Notes on the case....they make the argument, but don't tell the full story.
IANAL, but it this guy? (Score:2, Informative)
Or 'idem' and 'id' are both short for ibidem.
But like I said IANAL, I just took a few years of latin...
Re:IANAL, but it this guy? (Score:2, Informative)
Scholarly types prefer to abbreviate the same (ibidem) as 'ibid' when referencing the same thing again in footnotes.
I don't know why they each picked a different way, it just is.
Re:IANAL, but it this guy? (Score:1, Informative)
"Id." is short for "idem", and "ibid." is short for "ibidem", although it saves only one character.
(I'm not a lawyer, but I work with lawyers and study Latin.)
Just what I need! (Score:2, Funny)
Re:What's the definition of "is?" (Score:1)
prominient computer language as Eiffel?
BTW, here is a good page reviewing languages:
here [tunes.org]
A lot of useful and robust programs were written on that language;this strange language enforces
simple "for" loop as follows: you should write preconditions for loop, postconditions for loop, invariant of the loop and the loop itself.
I saw good and robust software written on such strange language - it worked.
Legal is like Eiffel...
new found respect for legalese (Score:1)
I Am *Still* Not A Lawyer (Score:4, Insightful)
Re:I Am *Still* Not A Lawyer (Score:4, Insightful)
It's more than just entertainment. There is social utility in lay people understanding the legal arguments presented in a case.
Re:I Am *Still* Not A Lawyer (Score:1)
Of course! I think no one in his right mind expects a three part explanation of a single brief to substitute for three years of law and several more years of experience. The author of the article is only interested in letting tech-geeks get a peek into an important and upcoming legal tussle whose outcome affects us tremendously.
Think of it as the legal equivalent of a three day MCSE Seminar. Except in this case, lawmeme doesn't give you a fancy certificate and doesn't even dangle you the illusion you are now a ``software engineer.''
It's a damn great article and I found myself enjoying it. I can't believe it is quite possible for lawyers to be so logical.
lawyer banner ads (Score:3, Funny)
Re:lawyer banner ads (Score:3, Informative)
I know this is +1 Funny put since you've mentioned it; state bar associations generally dictate how attorneys may and may not advertise their services. Most other professionals (doctors, real estate brokers, financial advisors, etc.) are kept on a similarly short leash.
Re:lawyer banner ads (Score:1)
Lawyer Scumm [power-of-attorneys.com]
Amusing typo (Score:1)
>Not even lawyers can mess up a table of contents.
Now that we have a Legalese for geeks... (Score:2, Funny)
Re:Now that we have a Legalese for geeks... (Score:1)
And stop emailing them pics from your webcam. It doesn't impress them to see your Star-wars action figures hanging on the basement wall behind you.
Get a real legal education (Score:5, Insightful)
The more people who think they know the law but are unaware of its subtleties and precedants make for a less intelligent exchange of ideas and more "I know what I'm talking about, listen to me, not them" type of exchanges.
I know this for two reasons: I come from a family of lawyers and legal experts, and I tend to fall into the "I'm correct, damnit!" category I just mentioned. Therefore, I'm usually shot down by the legal minds in my family, even when I'm being particularly intelligent in my own right, or *cough* quoting a piece of "+5 Insightful" legal advice gleaned from slashdot.
There is no substitute for a real legal education and pursuing real-world applications (be you a judge, law professor, trial lawyer or law clerk). I guess what I'm really attempting to say is that thinking you know something is no replacement for actually knowing that thing. Not that having a law degree makes you eligable to offer legal advice (I wouldn't ask an IP lawyer for help with closing on a house), but it does place you in better standing.
Use this article to help you better understand the legal document you are reading, do NOT use it to further legal advice to others -- that is not what this article, or any other like it, is meant for.
</rant>
Re:Get a real legal education (Score:2)
Agreed. My profession (talk radio) proves that almost daily, unfortunately. Most people haven't the faintest clue about what's going on, but they think they do (I mean, lawyers are scum! It can't be that complicated, now can it?).
There is no substitute for a real legal education and pursuing real-world applications (be you a judge, law professor, trial lawyer or law clerk).
I might be tempted to ask you to strike law professor from that.
Not that having a law degree makes you eligable to offer legal advice (I wouldn't ask an IP lawyer for help with closing on a house), but it does place you in better standing.
Bar exams are comprehensive. It may not be wise to hire an IP attorney to close on your house, but he's qualified to do it. He could also offer you advice if you're having a problem with your real estate attorney....You don't just learn one part of the law in law school. I could care less about contract law, however, I know I'm going to have to take it when I go to law school. And it will be on the bar exam, too.
Use this article to help you better understand the legal document you are reading, do NOT use it to further legal advice to others -- that is not what this article, or any other like it, is meant for.
Agreed. Although there are better primers for reading a case, I think. And don't get in the habit of giving legal advice to anyone. (Until you've passed the bar, and the person asking for advice has signed the billing agreement.
In other self-educated news... (Score:5, Funny)
Re:Get a real legal education (Score:1)
Although your argument is quite valid, it's also quite generalizing. I personally, having read the articles and followed with the brief, didn't get any impression of being on top of things... the only things that were cleared up were, as the document states, the syntax of the document... what words stand for... It states right at the beginning:
Legal is filled with bizzare keywords, strange syntax, and hideous redundancy
Quite analogously, just because you know how to declare a class, and derive it from a base class doesn't make you an object oriented programmer...
The point of the article, as it states itself:
One of the major goals of this walkthrough is to give you a better sense of when to skim and when to focus.
is not to teach how to write a program, but to teach how to somewhat read a program.
It's basically telling a completely computer illeterate person that, "really, you shouldn't start reading the code from _crtmain(), but rather from main()... and that really, when you're stepping through code, you don't need to actually see what's going on in a string class' copy constructor".
I personally found this article excellent, very well written, humorous, and very humble. It gives very few opinions about the actual case(only two IIRC).
This type of article is dangerous in the hands of careless people. As much as (and I hate to be saying this) a gun is as dangerous as the person carrying it.
So don't be fucking anal about it, don't go tearing it down just because you know 80% of the world population is lazy, and at times stupid, and will probably misuse this information.
Re:Get a real legal education (Score:2)
1. Do you really think that it would be better for people to know less about the laws that govern them? That seems to be what you are advocating here. Personally, I think this is a hell of a lot better than everyday people doing whatever the hell they want (think, showing movies in schools) and having no idea of the legal ramifications.
2. If this means just one less person on the internet will threaten to sue me, for saying something that has upset them, then that's all I could ask for.
Re:Get a real legal education (Score:1)
Re:Get a real legal education (Score:1)
AIUI, any citizen can still advocate - but you have to be qualified to do it for reward. So, if you represent a friend, you have to do it for free... unless you're qualified.
Re:Get a real legal education (Score:1)
Re:Get a real legal education (Score:1)
Not quite. You're always entitled to represent yourself, no matter your level of legal knowledge (or for that matter, even literacy). However, to represent another person (whether paid or not), you need to be a licensed attorney.
Re:Get a real legal education (Score:5, Insightful)
I also have a family connection to law, since my father is a lawyer. And when I've spoken to him about his cases, ever since I was a little kid, he has always taken the time to explain as much as he could about the facts, the law, the Constitution, and of course all of the coutroom politicking and dynamics that go on. It required a lot of long conversations, but he always encouraged me to develop my own understanding and opinions about what the law is, what it should be, and what the courts did and did not do correctly. I think it can only be in the lawyers' interests if all citizens try to do this as well as they can.
Reduce the legal system, and lawyers' arrogance (Score:1)
1. If a legal system, like a religion or a tax code, is so complex that only the high priests can understand it, then it is too complex. Simple rules are more likely to be read, understood, remembered, followed, and enforced, and at a lower cost. Our legal system is now a self-contradictory monster that frequently violates rights instead of enforcing them.
2. Despite their extensive educations, lawyers, like doctors and other arrogant initiates of the divine mysteries, frequently have significant holes in their understanding of the foundations of their discipline. I have recently been arguing with a lawyer friend at the International Criminal Court in The Hague about human rights, and it is clear that her understanding of the theoretical basis of why they are trying Milosevic & Co is less than complete. Sex tip for geeks: arguing such topics is *not* a good way to seduce a woman.
Re:Reduce the legal system, and lawyers' arrogance (Score:2, Insightful)
Right... because we could operate our society only on the Ten Commandments, no? You're right in some utopian kind of way, but the reason that our legal system (not to mention pretty much ANY legal system in the world) is so complex is because we CAN'T operate our society only on the Ten Commandments. Imagine the "injustice!", the "unfairness!" of a society like that. Humans being naturally sympathetic, we would almost immediately write exceptions to the rules ("Thou shalt not kill... unless in self defense"), and subrules to the main ones ("Thou shalt not steal... But if the value if that which has been stolen is less than $50, thou is guilty of a misdemeanor; otherwise, a felony"). And don't get me started on the difficulty of an entire society deciding on a set of SIMPLE rules. This is the way a complex society MUST form its legal system, lest we live in a tyrannical, fascist world.
Re:Reduce the legal system, and lawyers' arrogance (Score:2)
I submit that as soon as it becomes factually correct to say "The law is too complex to understand without a law degree", that it is too complex to exist in its current form. If I can be convicted for breaking a law that I've never heard of, despite not having lived in the Montana wilderness all my life, that law is too obscure. When laws get passed (or repealed) and the people aren't made aware of them in a form that is reasonably expected to be understood by those people, those laws shouldn't be binding.
It might be hard to write a complex legal system in such a way that the Average Joe with a high-school education can understand it, but I don't think we can call ourselves a free country until we can either come up with a simple legal system, or a smarter Average Joe. The legal system could be simplified a lot. Remove obsolete laws. When new laws are provided, if they overlap old laws, just rewrite the old laws, ideally. If the laws aren't written in language that everyone can understand, they won't be able to obey the law, so don't bother passing it until it's written in plain english.
And one thing that would help, write the entire legal code in a hyperlinked form. Let people start at simple overviews and unfold more detail as they go. A heading about as basic as "Thou shalt not kill" could eventually fold out into the laws against euthenasia, with links to other laws that are relevant in the discussion.
This way people could start to understand the system without being handed a huge book and told to flip through it. It'd actually let people look up the laws in a specific area to get a quick idea. They'd still (in today's system) need a lawyer if it was a gray area, but at least they could find out enough to ask the right questions and provide background.
Re:Reduce the legal system, and lawyers' arrogance (Score:1)
Uh, no. Did I say that? Surely there is some happy medium between the Ten Commandments and our current legal code? Why do you attack such a straw man? The explosion in law and litigation occurred relatively recently; somehow our society had been able to get along without it--what happened?
http://www.amazon.com/exec/obidos/ASIN
>the reason that our legal system...is so complex is because
>we CAN'T operate our society only on the Ten Commandments.
I would disagree with that assertion (ignoring the silly Ten Commandments reference, and assuming that you mean "a relatively simple code"). With a little imagination you should be able to think of some alternative reasons why our legal system has become so complex, e.g. that Congress in the last several decades has been unchained to legislate in areas that had been denied it by the Constitution. Here is some food for thought:
http://www.overlawyered.com
I write you this from Moscow, which I first visited in 1986. The USSR was an example of a nation with complex laws that that *stifled* the society, to the point of collapse. You can't just state without proof that things as they are necessarily evolved that way for a good reason, whether you are talking about a person's metastasized cancer or our current complex laws. I live now in Germany, and I get the same crap from Germans: we need laws, we need order. If the stores were allowed to operate on Sundays, we would have chaos in the streets. Well, maybe with fewer laws Germany wouldn't have the lowest rate of economic growth in Europe.
>we CAN'T operate our society only on the Ten Commandments.
>Imagine the "injustice!", the "unfairness!" of a society like that.
The US recently overtook Russia as the nation with the highest per-capita prison population in the world. Imagine the "injustice!" and "unfairness!" of that. That so many people are defined as criminals suggests that maybe we should re-examine some of the laws.
Re:Reduce the legal system, and lawyers' arrogance (Score:1)
This has absolutely nothing to do with the complexity of the legal code. I don't see how you can connect an increase in complexity with an increase in litigation. In fact, one would think that a simpler legal code would make it much easier to litigate, thus INCREASING litigation. Aside from that, you're right that the legal system has gotten more complex recently. The reason for this is a trend already taken by other countries towards enumerated "codes" (many other countries have civil law systems, which enumerate most if not all laws) and away from plain old English common law. This increase in complexity does not seem to have increased litigation in civil law countries, has it? Thus, the reason for an increase in litigation does NOT stem from an increase in complexity of our legal system. I could go on about why litigation is so common here in the US, but in fact that book that you post talks a lot about these reasons. Still, the book's points aren't attacking COMPLEXITY, but certain POLICY decisions made when the rules for civil procedure were enacted.
I would disagree with that assertion (ignoring the silly Ten Commandments reference, and assuming that you mean "a relatively simple code"). With a little imagination you should be able to think of some alternative reasons why our legal system has become so complex, e.g. that Congress in the last several decades has been unchained to legislate in areas that had been denied it by the Constitution. Here is some food for thought:
http://www.overlawyered.com
Um, looking at the link, again, nothing to do at all with the complexity of the legal system. If you knew anything about the rules in civil procedure and criminal procedure, you'd know that these rules make it easier for people to sue and make it easier for people to defend themselves in a criminal court. This has NOTHING to do with the complexity of the legal system, and everything to do with the preservation of rights, substantive laws notwithstanding. In NO OTHER COUNTRY on this earth are there such strong procedural safeguards put in place to protect people. This is why people in jail can still get out -- that's the beauty of habeas corpus. This is why we have an adversarial system, with the judge having fewer powers -- why entrust all the investigatory and interrogatory powers in one person, like in civil law countries? etc. etc. You're attacking abuses of procedural laws, which even though protect the vast majority of people admittedly allow others to file frivolous lawsuits and other bad things. But that has nothing to do with complexity.
Well, maybe with fewer laws Germany wouldn't have the lowest rate of economic growth in Europe.
Odd that you say this. You complain that the US has such a complex legal system, yet the US has had the highest rate of economic growth in recent years. There's simply no rational connection.
The US recently overtook Russia as the nation with the highest per-capita prison population in the world. Imagine the "injustice!" and "unfairness!" of that. That so many people are defined as criminals suggests that maybe we should re-examine some of the laws.
This, ONCE MORE, has nothing to do with the complexity of laws. The fact that we have many laws defining what a criminal is does not imply that it's too COMPLEX, but that we think there are many things that people shouldn't do. You argue instead about moral issues, not complexity issues. The SINGULAR difference, I'm sure, between the prison population in Russia and the one in the US is that 99.99999% of the Americans KNOW EXACTLY WHY they are in jail. That's the beauty of our criminal justice system, in the sense of PROCEDURE. You can argue the merits of having particular laws, but you can't say that all these people were thrown into jail arbitrarily, without knowing that they were doing something wrong. The increase in prison population is due to stringent drug laws and three strikes laws. NO MATTER WHAT YOU THINK ABOUT THESE LAWS, EVERYONE KNOWS THEM. It's ridiculous, IMHO, that a pot smoker caught three times will be jailed forever, and I'm sure that's what you think too. But you can't argue that the system was "too complex" and that the pot smoker didn't know EVEN THE FIRST TIME that what he was doing was illegal.
In the end, your arguments show a sad misunderstanding of the problems in the legal system. While the argument "legal systems could use some clarification and simplification" is a perfectly valid one, it doesn't solve the problems you seem to think it causes. What it does do is maintain consistency -- always a good thing -- and reduce certain societal costs.
Re:Reduce the legal system, and lawyers' arrogance (Score:1)
>In fact, one would think that a simpler legal
>code would make it much easier to litigate,
Frequently new legislation (like the Civil Rights Act) create new openings for litigation.
>You complain that the US has such a complex legal system,
>yet the US has had the highest rate of economic growth in recent years.
Only in very recent years has the US had a *relatively* high rate of economic growth *in comparison with other industrialized nations*, which (e.g. Germany) coincidentally have even more legislation and regulation. US growth has not been the highest (e.g. Ireland's is higher) and the recent spike (now ended) was an exception to a very long-acting rule: US GDP growth had slowed to a fraction of what it used to be, strange, given the more rapid growth in technology. Even if it does rise again, that does not mean that it could not be higher, e.g. the enormous cost of regulation has been well documented
http://www.cato.org/research/reglt-st
>The SINGULAR difference, I'm sure, between the prison population in Russia
>and the one in the US is that 99.99999% of the Americans KNOW EXACTLY WHY they are in jail
I once violated the tax code, unknowingly, and got a hefty fine. Now I pay an expert, because the tax code is too complex, and the penalty for noncompliance too high. Is your "SINGULAR" difference somehow a sufficient condition for justice? Of course not. And, in fact, it is not a difference: Russians know just as well why they are in prison. Two weeks ago I was in a car in Moscow and we were stopped by three cops. They hassled one woman about her papers for nearly half an hour. She knew "EXACTLY WHY", but that did not make it just. Moscow has complex residency laws that many cannot comply with: the cops exploit that by taking bribes.
>NO OTHER COUNTRY on this earth are there such strong
>procedural safeguards put in place to protect people.
That was a very strange assertion, and telling. And false. The end result of your "strong procedural safeguards" is by far the highest level of 1) homicide, 2) incarceration, and 3) executions in the industrialized world. Isn't that a small hint that we should re-examine the rules, e.g. those against drugs?
Some references:
Richard Epstein, who is not merely a lawyer but a professor of law at the University of Chicago, wrote a book called "Simple Rules for a Complex World", published by Harvard University Press:
http://www.amazon.com/exec/obidos/tg/deta
The introductory chapter is titled "Too Many Lawyers, Too Much Law". Epstein is highly respected, and coincidentally I just heard him interviewed a couple of days ago on the radio.
In "The Structure of Liberty", Prof. Randy Barnett also argues for a return from hyperlegislation to the traditional common law:
http://www.bu.edu/rbarnett/TOC.htm
"The Calculus of Consent", by James Buchanan and Gordon Tullock, which won the former a Nobel prize in economics (by the way, another libertarian just won this year, bring the number to at least four that I know of):
http://www.amazon.com/exec/obidos/tg/detail
"Government Failure", a more accessible textbook on the above Public Choice Theory recently appeared, again co-written by Tullock:
http://www.amazon.com/exec/obidos/ASIN/
Re:Get a real legal education (Score:1)
Congratulations Slashdot. (Score:1)
I think we should all give ourselves a pat on the back, because it is obvious that these guys were reading lots of slashdot before they wrote those articles.
Honestly, I didn't bother reading most of it... a self respecting geek doesn't have time to read loads of bullshit such as above. Honestly, I started to fall asleep after reading about the case numbers, etcetera, etcetera.
Keep up the good work!
www.goat.cx
Its like jeopardy! (Score:2, Funny)
"I'll take patent law for 500, Alex"
But it's still a human decision (Score:2, Interesting)
It's for this reason that you can always TRY to sue, no matter how silly the claim, because you just might win, even if the laws of the past seem against you.
Don't we need a translator *the other way*? (Score:4, Insightful)
What we really need is a tutorial on GeekSpeak for lawyers. That would teach them things like:
I think they already know these things. (Score:2)
They make "phat l3wt5" regardless.
A solid 10 year plan:
1) become lawyer
2)
3) $$$
Re:Don't we need a translator *the other way*? (Score:1)
Anyway, those four points you pose are extremely simplistic. Sure, you may believe wholeheartedly in it. But there are always two or more sides to ANY issue, and if it involves rights, then shit, lawyers will be involved. Do you think that the RIAA's lawyers are just going to throw up their hands and say, "we can't argue your side"? That's dumb. It's a lawyer's JOB to argue their clients' sides, even if the best argument is not that strong. Likewise, it's a lawyer's JOB to be able to understand issues like those you think only computer geeks can understand -- otherwise, they shouldn't be lawyers, because they'd suck.
Code!=Law (Score:4, Insightful)
I enjoyed the article, but I dislike the fact that this tends to enforce the idea that code==law.
Code isn't law. Protocols are like law. Code that follows (or breaks) the protocols is not law, but more like agents under the law. Saying that code==law is like saying that drivers are the motor vehicle code.
Now, certainly it should be illegal to misrepresent code as being compliant to a protocol when it isn't (e.g., MSFT Kerberos). However, the code itself shouldn't be illegal--only the misrepresentation.
The distinction is important, because certain Free Software zealots are trying to use the code==law argument to convince people that software should be Public (they like to say Free when what they really mean is Public, like the Public School System), and perhaps even that private software should be outlawed.
Re:Code!=Law (Hello? moderators?) (Score:1)
Perhaps the "code is law" comparison came from the phrase "legal code" or similar? Perhaps it's a metaphor rather than a direct equivalency? Perhaps the article was extending that metaphor in a light-hearted way while making an entirely unrelated point, rather than trying to argue the finer points of what Grand Meaning the metaphor contains?
I understand this point of view, and this is probably how most people see it. "legal code" is indeed very much like "software code". Unfortunately, there is a lot of manipulative rhetoric associated with the Public vs. Private debate in software. For example, people making a big fuss over how "software piracy" is not the same as killing a crew and taking a ship. Some even go so far as to call piracy "sharing". So... when I see a phrase like "code is law" being repeated like a mantra around the internet, I tend to look for ulterior motives. In other words, there are a lot of semantic games being played by advocates. If you haven't been following the game, it may not make any sense.
And no, Free Software is nothing like Public Schools
The Free Software movement is very much like the movement for Public Education--in its early years. Remember, the FSF was started in what... 1984? It's arguable that prior to the establishment of the FSF the Free Software movement didn't exist. Yes of course there was open source software before that, just as there were probably free schools before the Public Education movement. Compared to Public Education, Free Software is just a baby.
Compare this history [arc.org] of the Public School system written by Blacks with an axe to grind and this [goodschoolspa.org] less colorful history of the Public Education movement.
Now, compare both histories to the nascent Free Software movement. We already have some interesting parallels. First, we have idealists and visionairies that organize and characterize the early movements. Next, we have inputs from businesses. For the Public Schools, it's factory owners. For Free Software it's RedHat and IBM. The next step in Free Education was getting the taxpayer to pay for it, and establishing an accepted source of revenue (property taxes)--that made it Public Education. The Free Software movement is just beginning that phase. Government funding for Free Software is mostly stealth and/or ad hoc.
What I am projecting (and would like to see us avoid) is a situation where the Public is compelled to use software that is taxpayer funded and/or regulated.
None of the Free-Software "zealots" I've met are advocating an exclusively state-run system of software development
Of course not. They know nobody would accept that now. Instead, they are advocating things like a "preference" for GPL software on government-owned computers. That's just a stepping stone towards what they really want, which is a state-controlled software industry.
In fact the "proprietary" side is much closer to being state-supported
This argument only makes sense if you don't believe in IP rights. At this point, many people jump up and argue that IP was never recognized as a right when the constitution was framed. Well, liberty for Negroes and suffrage for women weren't recognized rights either. Morals have changed. So, the proprietary companies are no more state supported than any other citizen that enjoys police protection for their property.
Would you argue that Esso is in the public sector because the details of how their major product works are disclosed to the public, and people are free to re-create it on their own? As opposed to a private sector company like KFC, whose recipe is secret...
I would argue that the degree to which either business depends on IP is irrelevant in determining to what extent they are in the public sector. Relevant issues are whether or not they receive special tax breaks and subsidies, and to what extent they are regulated.
O'Reilly (Score:2, Funny)
Re:O'Reilly (Score:1)
For anyone who lives in Toronto... (Score:3, Interesting)
I'd recommend the course for anyone living in Toronto.
The course is _Law and the Citizen_, CAN271.
Re:For anyone who lives in Toronto... (Score:1)
Law and geeks (Score:3, Insightful)
What I mean by that is this: if technical people agree on a set of rules or protocols - that is the way things are - virtually without exception. If a program fails to abide by a protocol - it generally won't work.
The law looks similar and so we think we understand what is going on; we are wrong.
The law is nothing of the kind; the law is quite literally what ever a clever lawyer can talk a judge or jury into believing at that given moment. As such it has a malleable quality quite unacceptable to anyone who has the ability to think honestly.
Imagine the chaos that would rule in the technical world if clueless pointy hair bosses controlled - from minute to minute - based purely on whim - what protocols meant. That is an accurate description of the situation in the legal world.
The law is a system constructed by weasel brains for the benefit of weasel brains and nothing else. Of course the weasel brains realize that if the thinkers ever catch on to what is happening to them - that the game is over. Because of that the weasels go to great lengths to insure that no one who is honest and intelligent ever looks too closely and critically at the basic design and structure of the law. The law is designed so that if the technically sharp study it that they will be so surrounded by trees that they will never notice the shape of the forrest.
If this causes you realize that the law is, in fact,nothing but a gigantic fraud of the first magnitude - then you have begun to understand what is going on in the world.
The law - a real time operating system for life critical functions - consisting of billions of lines of code - not one line of which has ever been tested to see if it works.
IAAL, Observations (Score:3, Informative)
2. Going to law school is a shitty career move, at least money-wise, for a computer geek. Aside from the three years of negative income, big law firms won't hire you unless you go to Harvard or some "top 25" law school and/or your grades are good enough to get on law review. Your IT skills are mostly irrelevant to the law job market. If you have an engineering degree you might possibly be able to get into patent law. If you enter private practice, you will discover that....
3. Computer geeks make crappy law clients. They already think they know everything. They are far happier as pro pers (people who try to represent themselves in court as their own lawyers).
4. IT pays better and you don't have to deal with shit from clients, some of whom will lose in court because they deserve to, and will then be pissed at you and file bogus bar complaints and malpractice suits. Did you rent Cape Fear?
5. Some clients are insane (see (3)).
NOLO Press needs to be mentioned here. (Score:3, Insightful)
I'm not affiliated with NOLO, except for the fact that I'm a very satisfied customer. I've started and run a couple of small technology businesses, and dealt with a fair amount of IP (both patent and trademark) and contract law issues, and NOLO books are great for educating yourself about what the real legal issues are, and when you really need to get an attorney involved.
-Mark
(IANAL, but my wife is -- and she approves of NOLO