Peggy
in memoriam 2016
... the law has proved time and again that common sense has nothing to do with the law.
As we have just witnessed....
... the law has proved time and again that common sense has nothing to do with the law.
Consider the following fictional example:I don't understand the reasoning that two courts in two different countries with two completely different and separate legal systems cannot hear the case if both determine they have standing to do so. Can someone knowlegable please explain that? I'm not even smart enough to play a lawyer on TV when it comes to things like this.
I know its off topic, but shouldn't it update when you make a post?Kier was last seen: Viewing thread Current Litigation, 14 minutes ago
Consider the following fictional example:
Adam is driving along the road while reading the newspaper. Bernard is driving his own car along the same road when suddenly Adam's car veers off course and crashes into Bernard's.
Bernard's car is a wreck, and as Adam has no insurance, Bernard decides to sue Adam in his home town of Bernardville. Bernard sues Adam using a Bernardville's law that states that one must have one's full concentration on the road when driving. Bernard seeks the cost of replacing his car in damages.
Then, Bernard decides to also sue Adam in Adamsberg, using an Adamsberg law that states that one must not read the newspaper while driving.
Bernard wins his case in Bernardsville, and Adam is ordered to pay Bernard the $20,000 that it will cost to replace the wrecked car. Adam duly pays Bernard.
Bernard then also wins in Adamsberg, and Adam is ordered to pay Bernard $20,000...
See where this falls over?
The UK government is putting its money where its mouth is. It’s appointed a panel of IP experts, to review the IP system – including copyright, trademark, patent and design rights, along with more informal types of IP – and its effect on innovation.
At the hearing, the judge read a prepared statement and did not allow any oral argument. We await the publication of the ruling to see if we can make sense of it from a legal standpoint.Good find there Salty.
Kier, do you know roughly, when you'll be able to expand more on the outcome from the hearing?
What?? Neither side was able to argue why the case should/should not be dismissed?? That's insane.At the hearing, the judge read a prepared statement and did not allow any oral argument. We await the publication of the ruling to see if we can make sense of it from a legal standpoint.
Me personally, I wouldn't even bother to attend or fight it in another country... what are they really going to do at the end of the day? Just don't go back to the US ever. I would just continue with the UK one personally.
It's the notion of fundamental fairness to litigants and the best use of our limited time and resources. If one court is acceptable to both litigants and there is just one argument/issue, it should be decided and finished in and by that one court. Some examples if you think about it:I don't understand the reasoning that two courts in two different countries with two completely different and separate legal systems cannot hear the case if both determine they have standing to do so. Can someone knowlegable please explain that? I'm not even smart enough to play a lawyer on TV when it comes to things like this.
(I doubt this judge is as bad as my mom & dad. At least I hope not. My mother curls up in a little ball & cries if a device has more than an on/off switch.)
We're triplets!OMG, we seem to share the same mother.
The only thing lawyers prepare their case on is the law and other cases or legal precedent, judges are lawyers too !!
Luke 11:46 said:Jesus replied, "And you experts in the law, woe to you, because you load people down with burdens they can hardly carry, and you yourselves will not lift one finger to help them.
We use essential cookies to make this site work, and optional cookies to enhance your experience.