11–20 of 170 posts
Although these issues are very important, something feels wrong about having the Supreme Court justices (avg. age ~70) rule on tech matters like this. We need a new legal system for arbitrating disputes in technical disciplines overseen by a panel of technical experts. Or perhaps a trial by jury where the selection criteria is employment in the relevant discipline for at least 10 years (academia or corporate).
Although these issues are very important, something feels wrong about having the Supreme Court justices (avg. age ~70) rule on tech matters like this. We need a new legal system for arbitrating disputes in technical disciplines overseen by a panel of technical experts. Or perhaps a trial by jury where the selection criteria is employment in the relevant discipline for at least 10 years (academia or corporate).
Although these issues are very important, something feels wrong about having the Supreme Court justices (avg. age ~70) rule on tech matters like this. We need a new legal system for arbitrating disputes in technical disciplines overseen by a panel of technical experts. Or perhaps a trial by jury where the selection criteria is employment in the relevant discipline for at least 10 years (academia or corporate).
Why is that a problem? It's certainly possible that the judge was an avid home computer enthusiast in the 1980s and knows about tech.
Old age doesn't automatically mean technological incompetence anymore.
Although these issues are very important, something feels wrong about having the Supreme Court justices (avg. age ~70) rule on tech matters like this. We need a new legal system for arbitrating disputes in technical disciplines overseen by a panel of technical experts. Or perhaps a trial by jury where the selection criteria is employment in the relevant discipline for at least 10 years (academia or corporate).
Why is the average age of the Supreme Court justices relevant ?
Although these issues are very important, something feels wrong about having the Supreme Court justices (avg. age ~70) rule on tech matters like this. We need a new legal system for arbitrating disputes in technical disciplines overseen by a panel of technical experts. Or perhaps a trial by jury where the selection criteria is employment in the relevant discipline for at least 10 years (academia or corporate).
> avg. age ~70 Why is that a problem? It's certainly possible that the judge was an avid home computer enthusiast in the 1980s and knows about tech. Old age doesn't automatically mean technological incompetence anymore.
Although these issues are very important, something feels wrong about having the Supreme Court justices (avg. age ~70) rule on tech matters like this. We need a new legal system for arbitrating disputes in technical disciplines overseen by a panel of technical experts. Or perhaps a trial by jury where the selection criteria is employment in the relevant discipline for at least 10 years (academia or corporate).
Its not a tech matter, its a matter of the application of Copyright law. Its exactly what the Supreme Court exists to do.
> We need a new legal system for arbitrating disputes in technical disciplines overseen by a panel of technical experts.
Specialized trial or intermediate appellate courts of this type may make some sense (though such a specialized body --whose members are no doubt both drawn from and likely to leave to industry -- runs a particular risk of regulatory capture and becoming a body that reflects very well the interests of the bigger players in the industry), but I don't see any good reason for fragmentation at the top of the judicial branch just because technology, so I don't see any reason that ultimately such issues wouldn't end up with the Supreme Court.
> Or perhaps a trial by jury where the selection criteria is employment in the relevant discipline for at least 10 years (academia or corporate).
Specialized juries defeat the purpose of trial by jury -- and, anyway, then you just create a bunch of additional litigation over the boundaries of the "relevant discipline" for each case as each side tries to set the experience qualifications to suit the pool of jurors it thinks will be most favorable.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
Why is the average age of the Supreme Court justices relevant ?
How could a group with exceptionally sharp minds who have lived through 7 decades of intense technological and social change possibly have better perspectives than people who have lived through 2?
Although these issues are very important, something feels wrong about having the Supreme Court justices (avg. age ~70) rule on tech matters like this. We need a new legal system for arbitrating disputes in technical disciplines overseen by a panel of technical experts. Or perhaps a trial by jury where the selection criteria is employment in the relevant discipline for at least 10 years (academia or corporate).
> avg. age ~70 Why is that a problem? It's certainly possible that the judge was an avid home computer enthusiast in the 1980s and knows about tech. Old age doesn't automatically mean technological incompetence anymore.
Although these issues are very important, something feels wrong about having the Supreme Court justices (avg. age ~70) rule on tech matters like this. We need a new legal system for arbitrating disputes in technical disciplines overseen by a panel of technical experts. Or perhaps a trial by jury where the selection criteria is employment in the relevant discipline for at least 10 years (academia or corporate).
Why is the average age of the Supreme Court justices relevant ?
Supreme court justices are (hopefully) legal experts, not technical experts. Having younger supreme court justices doesn't change that _at all_. I don't know of many lawyers that know what an API is.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
> avg. age ~70 Why is that a problem? It's certainly possible that the judge was an avid home computer enthusiast in the 1980s and knows about tech. Old age doesn't automatically mean technological incompetence anymore.
Yes, and remember that each justice has an office full of clerks who will typically be in their late 20s and early 30s advising them.