[Sussex] Patent bites patenter.

[Geoffrey J. Teale]

Paul Tansom <paul at aptanet.com> writes:

------ %< -------------

> I'm more thinking of situations where cases that are thrown out on a
> technicality. Clearly these technicalities are there to protect the
> innocent, but it does sometimes seem that the purpose of the legal
> representation is not to present the best evidence to support your case,
> but to win the case. This may seem like two ways of saying the same
> thing, but sometimes it appears that it is a case of not being able to
> win the case on the evidence, so find another way to ensure you are the
> winning side. Perhaps this doesn't happen often and we just see the
> exceptions. Perhaps US TV portrays lawyers as corrupt to often and that
> is the image that sticks! Perhaps things like the SCO case don't show
> the US lawyers in a good light! I can't think of a real example off
> hand, so perhaps a comedy/fictitious example from the Thin Blue Line
> (ook, sad!) will do - where a case was thrown out because one of them
> was wearing the wrong uniform (iirc). Clearly exaggerated comedy, but
> all comedy has a basis in reality otherwise it isn't funny (hmm, really
> bad example!!!).

I think generally lawyers get a bad rap for all the wrong reasons.
People think they understand the law and what it is for, but generally
our ideas are deeply flawed.  It's actually fair to make the point
that people get off on technicalities, even when there case is
otherwise poor - this however is a point of fault with legislation and
judegment, not with solicitors and barristers making a case.  

Lawyers always act in the best interest of their client - this is
essential to a fair legal system.

I imagine you would be very annoyed if you where defended by a lawyer
who could get you off on a technicality, but refused to.

I take the point that these kinds of decisions are annoying to observe
(although the press tend to jump on such things and make them look far
more commonplace than they actually are), but the root of peoples
anger is often simply a lack of understanding.  People believe they
know _something_ about the law, but most people not only know nothing,
it's common for people to believe things that are utterly false.  

How many people believe in the concept of a "common law wife"?  There
is no such legal status.  That's a trivial example, but a good one,
people talk with authority about things like the human rights act or
the trades description act, and more often than not they are making
claims that have nothing to do with those pieces of legislation.

When you look at a lawyers actions you should remind yourself how you
feel when people complain that IT staff:

 * break things on purpose to give themselves job security; 
 * attempt to blind people with science in order to hide the fact that our jobs are actually very
easy; 
 * are all lazy, overpaid and under qualified.

For clarity I should point out to the newer list members, IANAL(BMWI)
(I am not a lawyer (but my wife is)) :-)

Now estate agents... they really are bastards :-)

-- 
Geoff Teale
CMed Technology            -   gteale at cmedresearch.com
Free Software Foundation   -   tealeg at member.fsf.org