Did I propose such a system? I thought I was proposing that her contempt of legal process required addressing:



Also, referring to something you said earlier:


Don't you find that perverse? I really don't believe it to be actually true.

Most judges are honourable people chosen because they are seen to be wiser than your average Jo. As such, I expect Judges to act in the spirit of the law and not allow it to be twisted beyond it's original good intent.

Where the law has become twisted, which is widely perceived to be the case with patent law, then the matter simply cannot be left to fester with no blame being placed on any individual. People must be held accountable. Judges and lawyers must account for their actions, and they must account for them personally. The rot should be cut out, and where necessary the laws should be rewritten.

Very difficult when precedents have been set.

It would be nice though. What we need is a good revolution.

To be honest, the legal system in the west isn't that bad when it comes to the criminal side of things. However, there are times when "they" need reminding that the law is supposed to work for the people, and not the other way around!

Actually, that wasn't me, it was my learnèd colleague, jonbwfc. Although it's nice that you thought something he wrote was written by me, he's always on the money (except in certain rugby-related issues).



No, I don't find it perverse at all. What I would find perverse is judges applying their own ideas of "right" and "wrong" to a case as they're subjective values and the whole point of a legal system is to be as objective as possible. That's why judges - in our two systems at least - are bound by legislation and precedent. They are there to apply the law as it's written, not decide that "this law seems a bit iffy to me, I'll just overlook it". Do that and you're setting judges up as entities outside of the law; something I'm sure you wouldn't want.

Anyway, you'll get the chance to hear more from your favourite Federal Court judge soon enough. Remember, the case itself is ongoing and this decision only applies to the injunction, which I see this morning the High Court has reimposed, albeit temporarily. You'll also be pleased to know the Full Bench pointed out that everyone involved - the judge, Apple and Samsung - pretty much has to pull their socks up and do a better job. So yes, the judge and the lawyers (on both sides) are being held accountable for their actions - they've been slapped down, very publicly, by a superior court.

Which is exactly how it should work.

Oops, guilty as charged. Luckily no offence taken, so hopefully you'll let me off with an apology!

I'm not convinced by this "letter of the law > spirit of the law" argument, and I've never been comfortable with the idea of a legal system bound by precedent. One questionable judgement can set a dangerous precedent. One sound judgement may set a precedent which is later applied inappropriately. Deferring a judges good sense to precedence is effectively saying that dead judges know more of modern law than the living. I do not believe that we should put such unquestioning faith in our ancestors. That way lies the path of ever increasing insanity, with every new case adding momentum to a false religion.

I'm not suggesting that judges "overlook" the law, simply that they interpret it in the context of the case in hand while considering the intent of those that wrote it; That they interpret the law in the spirit in which it was intended without paying heed to those lawyers gaming the system for personal gain.

Jolly good. I'll await the final outcome before condemning the entire system

Oh no...