Supreme Court ruling is a blow to copyright trolling business-model


#1

[Read the post]


#2

To make it completely objective, we should get rid of any kind of discretion in court decisions. We need to build an expert computer system to dispassionately make judgements without any human bias. I, for one, will welcome our new judicial overlords.


#3

Because unlike judges with years of experience, computer programmers have an objective understanding of everything, especially court cases that haven’t even been brought yet.


#4

While I regard the gpp as being totally unrealistic, I have to point out that while information scientists may design the methods used in expert systems, and computer programmers may implement the software, expert systems are not designed by programmers. They are designed by information scientists working with experts in the field, in much the same way that transport networks are not designed by either vehicle engineers or thermodynamicists.


#5

While my previous post was an apparently unsuccessful attempt to make a joke, discretionary decisions bother me because they usually favour the side whose daughter plays golf with judge’s neighbour’s cousin. There is very little that can be done to discipline the judges who make intentionally bad judgements. While the expert systems are far from being able to replace humans, they might still be used to make recommendations. At least a system can be evaluated and improved. Moreover, when programmers develop it, they have no idea what future cases it will be used for. If they are caught, they can be readily replaced. Unlike a judge…


#6

I understand. But a lot of bad has come from “three strikes” and “zero tolerance” laws, and my guess is that even a very complex ruleset is still a ruleset, and no substitute for wisdom. It’s true some judges are arbitrary and unaccountable, and that’s bad - but so is the very best algorithm. I believe (without evidence) that most judges are actually pretty good at what they do.


#7

Damm skippy… If a corporation criminal conspiracy works together to reap the benefits of international manufacture of products (printint books and textbooks overeas), but refuses to pass on at least some of the benefit to consumers (Region/Nation “export prohibited”) then you should have to pay up the judgement and pay for the prevailing partiy’s legal fees to set a warning that this will not be tollerated by the judicial system.


#8

This topic was automatically closed after 5 days. New replies are no longer allowed.