[copypasterepeat]

I am not a lawyer, but my understanding is that's just how the justice system works. Reasonable people can disagree about what exactly a complicated statement says, since language is full of ambiguities. People have been discussing what the U.S. Constitution says exactly from the day it was written and there are still a lot of disagreements.

The standard response to this is that laws should be written in ways that are non-ambiguous but that's easier said than done. Not to mention that sometimes the lawmakers can't fully agree themselves so they leave some statements intentionally ambiguous so that they can be interpreted by the courts.

[kmoser]

Nobody reasonably expects all laws to be written completely unambiguously. But since laws (and indeed all manner of legal documents) are filled with lists and modifiers, I don't think it's unreasonable to require that they be written to a certain standard which defines how these lists and modifiers should be interpreted, similar to RFC 2119 https://microformats.org/wiki/rfc-2119.

[skissane]

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.

[shagie]

It happens from time to time. https://www.theverge.com/2017/10/19/16503076/oracle-vs-googl... ( 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.

[billtoth]

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).

[shagie]

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?

[billtoth]

Oh sure! I'm an IP litigator, so a lot of what I do entails investigating and explaining how technology (usually implemented in source code) works. We have forensic engineers that do a lot of that work, but it's important to have some lawyers on the team who know to ask the right questions to battle test their own experts' conclusions, cross examine the other side, and turn it into a story for non technical audiences like judges and juries.

[ptsneves]

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.

[skissane]

> 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

[Xelynega]

Correction, that is how common law legal system works.

Alternatives like codified law exist and are practiced, just not in the US or Canada.