Lack of prejudice is one thing, but lack of technical competence is a genuine risk in cases like these.
Without that competence, a lawyer can all too easily have a jury basing decisions on facts that are blindingly obvious. Fortunately, the Judge in this case seemed to be sufficiently clued up: "I have done, and still do, a significant amount of programming in other languages. I’ve written blocks of code like rangeCheck a hundred times before. I could do it; you could do it. The idea that someone would copy that when they could do it themselves just as fast, it was an accident. There's no way you could say that was speeding them along to the marketplace. You're one of the best lawyers in America, how could you even make that kind of argument?" On 30 May 2012 17:38, Fabrizio Giudici <[email protected]>wrote: > On Wed, 30 May 2012 17:50:40 +0200, Ricky Clarkson < > [email protected]> wrote: > > I'm sure most software engineers don't know enough to have an opinion on >> those things, if you draw them at random. Not that having an opinion is >> necessarily a bad thing. >> > > This is true, as Cédric is right in saying that engineers could have a > pre-judice. The problem is that the law is getting too complex. Once a > definition of things is too complex, interpretation is arbitrary, as it > largely depends on the choice of interpreters. > > > > -- You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups "Java Posse" group. To post to this group, send email to [email protected]. To unsubscribe from this group, send email to [email protected]. For more options, visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/javaposse?hl=en.
