[michaelfeathers]

Here's the thing that we need to be aware of. I'm assuming that many of the readers of HN are programmers or have been programmers. The law is very literal, it is like code. But not everything in life is black and white.

Often I run into programmers who want want to think that all questions should have yes or no answers. Even if they don't, many of us have a deep sense that there is something right about seeing the world in terms of strict categorical statements.

Me? Well, as a programmer, citizen and human being, I'm suspicious of it. Deeply.

[roel_v]

"The law is very literal, it is like code."

(I have degrees in law & CS)

No, it's not, and it's the nr 1 mistake armchair lawyers across the internet are making in commenting on this case. Law is much more common sense than many people give it credit for; except it's common sense in a very different way than many people want it to be. (e.g., the bickering elsewhere in this thread on the intricate details of the facts and Orin's analysis of it).

[michaelfeathers]

Can you give us a bit more of your perspective on the case, esp. regarding the common sense view of it from a law perspective? I'd love to hear it.