Judges Using the Internet

I hope so

May 15 2004

the wealth of knowledge is to great to not take advantage of.

01:52 PM EDT

ABA use

by Peter H. Salus

May 15 2004

In 1998, I spoke to an ABA meeting concerning the
Internet. Most of the audience, it seemed, was
composed of state AGs and DAs. (Lawrence Lessig
was also on the program.)

What struck me was the eagerness of the audience
to acquire as much information as possible.

It has been clear to me since then that the entire
world of jurisprudence is far more aware than I had
thought.

I'm certain that the judges (and the lawyers on both
sides) in these cases have been reading GROKLAW, though
perhaps not every item/comment) and have followed a
number of the links.

---
Peter H. Salus

02:14 PM EDT

Semi-off topic question

May 15 2004

I have a question about judges that's sort of off topic. I wonder how much
control a judge has over the procedures in a case.

Say Judge Kimball wanted to know, before discovery with SCO even began, what
AT&T (the original party in the IBM System V contract) had to say about the
SCO (as purported successor in interest) interpretation of the contract and
amendments.

If AT&T employees were to testify that IBM could do whatever they want with
their AIX code, as long as it contained no System V code, this would eliminate
the ability for SCO to request the AIX code. Wouldn't the judge save a lot of
time and money if he eliminated the need for a lot of the motions during
discovery by asking some questions at the beginning?

SCO can still do an audit of the Linux kernel against their System V code and
then see if IBM contributed any code that might be found.

Am I being too much of an idealist, or does the judge have the power to do
something like this?

01:54 PM EDT

Semi-off topic question

by PJ

May 15 2004

Actually, the purpose of discovery is to find out what needs to be handled at
trial. From that standpoint, it saves a *lot* of time. Sometimes, after
discovery, you find out there is no case, and it implodes. Sometimes, you find
stuff you can use to prove your case, and you use it at trial. Most of the time
what happens is each side refines its position. You have seen that already in
the SCO v. IBM case, with 2nd Amended Complaints and such like. As they
discover the evidence, they know better what might work.

Doing it your way would enormously lengthen and complicate the system.

04:57 PM EDT

What about juries?

May 15 2004

Are jury members given any instructions about what information they can access
during the course of a trial, particularly if the trial is long?

03:51 PM EDT

What about juries?

by PJ

May 15 2004

Yes, juries are under more restrictions. The difference is, they don't know the
rules of evidence, and they might be influenced by things they read and hear in
a way a judge would never be.

05:01 PM EDT