Comment by skissane
2 months ago
I’ve often thought we’d get more sensible results in court cases on computer-related issues if we had specialised courts where the judges were required to have a relevant degree (computer science, software engineering, computer engineering, information systems, etc). But I doubt it is going to happen any time soon.
It happens from time to time. https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=15834800 42 comments)
> These days, he often looks for some kind of STEM background for the IP desk. It’s not necessary, but it helps. Bill Toth, the IP clerk during Oracle v. Google, didn’t have a STEM background, but he told me that the judge had specifically asked him to take a computer science course in preparation for his clerkship. When I asked Alsup about it, he laughed a little — he had no recollection of “making” Toth take any classes — but he did acknowledge that sometimes he gives clerks a heads up about what kind of cases are coming their way, and what kind of classes might be useful ahead of time.
Note that it's not necessarily the judge that's important as an individual knowing the material, but that the clerks who work for the judge are.
I'm the referenced Bill Toth. Just thought I'd mention the funny fact that in private practice I've actually argued about the significance of database schema (less for security reasons, more for analyzing the outputs of the database).
I always find it interesting to see the people that show up in comments that are the authorities on the matter being quoted and am reminded that hn has a very diverse readership.
One of the things that this also reminds me of is the impression that "learn to code" meant "everyone should be a software developer" when your experiences demonstrate a "learn to code" was part of "becoming a better legal professional".
Do you have other examples of how learning to code improved your abilities as a legal professional?
1 reply →
Civil code law uses that way of thinking, where there are specialised courts for different areas: administrative, civil, labor, family, commercial and so on. I actually am not so sure it is great as these courts increase the depths of the bureaucracy to the point of being self serving. They also serve to segment expertise.
> Civil code law uses that way of thinking, where there are specialised courts for different areas: administrative, civil, labor, family, commercial and so on.
This happens in common law countries too. For example, the US has specialised courts (at the federal level) for bankruptcy, federal government contract disputes (US Court of Federal Claims), taxation (US Tax Court), among others. It also has a nationwide appellate court (Federal Circuit) with jurisdiction limited to certain topics (patents, trademarks, federal government contracts, among others), and another (DC Circuit) which despite being technically geographic in practice also has topical jurisdiction (many-but not all-lawsuits against federal agencies). Many states have specialised courts for various areas of law
It is very common in common law countries to have specialised courts/tribunals (or divisions thereof-there isn’t a big difference between a specialist court and a specialist division of a generalist court) to deal with certain types of cases, especially bankruptcy, family law, probate, child welfare, juvenile crime, patents, taxation, administrative law, military law, immigration, small claims - the exact set varies, but specialised courts/tribunals/divisions are very common.
But I’ve never heard of a specialised court/tribunal/division for computer cases