Both by the Supreme Court and Congress, the concept of obviousness has been tightened up considerably.
...
This is a synopsis of the current bill. You'll notice the tightening up of the obviousness requirement.
I'm not convinced it's really enough, the problem is that obviousness in this context will end up being determined by battling expert witnesses. There's no way a judge or a jury could determine obvoiusness.
Back in my youth I wrote a data structure that mapped an N-dimensional array of group elements (where N, and the group was selectable at runtime) onto an N-toroid in such a way that if you had a had a point in the array you could reach an adjacent point in constant time. It's entirely possible that I could get a patent on that, even though it is in fact nothing more than an N-dimensionally linked list of objects with a subroutine to initialize it.
It might seem non-obvious because it's obscure, but any other decent computer scientist who found himself trying to write an N-dimensional lattice gauge Monte Carlo simulation would likely come up with it too.
Programmers are all inventors, to a greater or lessor degree, and we all invariably end up treading on previously covered ground. There are probably no more than a handful of ideas a year that truly deserve a software patent.
A court shouldn't be friendly or unfriendly to anyone. It should be neutral. I think Jeff's point about legal "tourism" is a valid one. The article points out that as Marshall TX is such a small town, that everyone knows everyone--that the juries know the local lawyers and the judge knows them all. This kind of single-industry driven burg can be very incestuous and creates a real impediment to blind justice. It strongly suggests a high degree of cronyism that results show favors patent holders.
Quotes like this from the NYT article:
". . . patent holders win 78 percent of the time, compared with an average of 59 percent nationwide, according to LegalMetric, a company that tracks patent litigation."
are a legitimate cause for concern. When results are this badly skewed from the national average, doesn't that bother you at all? Brings back memories of the bad old days of southern justice when civil rights cases were routinely decided against the plaintiff.
In the real world, courts are not perfect. They do not have the same batting average on any number of types of cases.
I am actually surprised by all the hay being made about the difference between a 59% and 78% difference in ruling for plaintiffs. How much should the difference be in order for the results to be considered "neutral" in your opinion? 10%? 5%? 2%? Is this not just a numbers game?
Could it also be that defendants are granted too much opportunity to create delays and obstructions in other federal courts? Could it not be that other courts would rule more favorably for plaintiffs in patent cases if they adopted similar rules of operation? I have no idea, but then neither does anyone else commenting on this article. And yet, the gross assumption is that this particular court is not neutral. The only way I can see of coming to this conclusion absent critical facts is to be biased against plaintiffs in patent cases. And very clearly, a lot of people commenting in this thread are very much biased in that direction.
You would have to prove that statement, and it will be an awfully difficult one to prove.
Why would I have to prove anything? Legally it makes no difference whether a patent was created in order to make a product or simply to troll. Intent isn't part of patent law.
Politically proof is obviously irrelevant because what will matter is lobbying. For as long as software patents remain popular with big industry players they will continue to exist in pretty much their present form.
But the second part of my statement is pretty obvious. Look at the vast amount of public domain software, not just modern open-source but old school PD too. Then compare it with the relatively small number of patents. It's far easier for a coder to make a program than a patent, otherwise we'd be patent lawyers.
Genuine programmers just write code, else Visicalc would have been patented.
I'm not convinced it's really enough, the problem is that obviousness in this context will end up being determined by battling expert witnesses. There's no way a judge or a jury could determine obvoiusness.
Back in my youth I wrote a data structure that mapped an N-dimensional array of group elements (where N, and the group was selectable at runtime) onto an N-toroid in such a way that if you had a had a point in the array you could reach an adjacent point in constant time. It's entirely possible that I could get a patent on that, even though it is in fact nothing more than an N-dimensionally linked list of objects with a subroutine to initialize it.
It might seem non-obvious because it's obscure, but any other decent computer scientist who found himself trying to write an N-dimensional lattice gauge Monte Carlo simulation would likely come up with it too.
Programmers are all inventors, to a greater or lessor degree, and we all invariably end up treading on previously covered ground. There are probably no more than a handful of ideas a year that truly deserve a software patent.
The term for obviousness includes the part which refers to the competent worker in that field. They don't mean obvious by a 6th grade graduate. In your case, it would mean anyone who could, and might figure it out for themselves if presented with the problem. And that's another thing most people don't understand about patents. A problem has to be stated for the solution to become obvious, or not, as the case may be.
People don't operate in a vacuum. If a problem isn't present, they won't think of a solution to it. So, as you say, anyone in your position would have come up with this solution. That's not demeaning you, as you've said it yourself.
The problem with the patent office isn't the theory of patentability, but the salaries of the examiners, the budget for them, and thus the number of them. It's a highly overworked office, and so mistakes occur. I know of a few amusing ones myself.
In addition, I know from talking to a few examiners in the course of one of my companies applying for patents that they tend to give the benefit of the doubt in cases where it might go either way. The concept is simple. If a patent is denied, then that's usually it for the entity that applies. But if it's granted, it can always be denied later.
Why would I have to prove anything? Legally it makes no difference whether a patent was created in order to make a product or simply to troll. Intent isn't part of patent law.
Politically proof is obviously irrelevant because what will matter is lobbying. For as long as software patents remain popular with big industry players they will continue to exist in pretty much their present form.
But the second part of my statement is pretty obvious. Look at the vast amount of public domain software, not just modern open-source but old school PD too. Then compare it with the relatively small number of patents. It's far easier for a coder to make a program than a patent, otherwise we'd be patent lawyers.
Genuine programmers just write code, else Visicalc would have been patented.
You made the statement. Why make it if it doesn't matter, or isn't germaine?
I agree that intent isn't part of patent law. Your statement read as though you thought it was. As you're stating that it isn't, we can forget about it.
If it's too difficult to establish "residency" for the purpose of assigning docket, then assign cases by rotation and/or randomized selection--much the way cases are assigned to judges within a court. Might be a bummer for some company that lives right next door to their local District Court to have to travel across the country. But it is simpler than trying to close every loophole to district shopping. Besides, at present plaintiffs don't seem to mind traveling all the way to Texas.
I am actually surprised by all the hay being made about the difference between a 59% and 78% difference in ruling for plaintiffs. How much should the difference be in order for the results to be considered "neutral" in your opinion? 10%? 5%? 2%? Is this not just a numbers game?
There is a national average, and being nearly 20 points off of it is pretty significant statistically I would think. It certainly isn't a numbers game, but your point seems to be playing into it.
Rather than trying to fix on a number, it might be more productive to take a common sense approach. If it walk like a duck, etc. (On the other hand a good lawyer could convince a jury that a duck is not actually a duck by distracting their attention from the obvious to myriad details.)
Do the juries and judges in the East Texas courts get a cut of the money awarded? It sounds like they always rule in favor of the people filing the suit and being awarded damages. Maybe it's done in secret? What would be the percentage you have to pay for a successful lawsuit? 1% 3%??
You made the statement. Why make it if it doesn't matter, or isn't germaine?
I made a statement you said I needed to prove it, I simply pointed out that I had absolutely no need to prove it, it could stand in this discussion simply as opinion. One could just as easily say that if you disagree with it you must disprove it, or prove your own claim that these patent holders are mostly inventors who were unable to bring their product to market, despite their pockets being deep enough to both patent their idea and sue to enforce it.
Can you prove
Quote:
The problem with the patent office isn't the theory of patentability, but the salaries of the examiners
Since many egregious patents stand up in court it clearly isn't just a problem of patent office salaries.
Can you prove
Quote:
In this sense, even a lawsuit from a troll aids innovation. If a company doesn't want to pay them, let them find another way of doing it, that's the entire point.
(Good luck with that one)
You make statements that you cannot prove all the time, are they not germaine? Do they not matter? Would you like me to demand proof everytime you make one in future? I strongly suggest you drop this line because it isn't going to go well for you.
Oh and the idea that a troll aids innovation is completely ridiculous on many levels.
The troll has patented the most natural way to accomplish something, often at a UI level. Unnatural UIs aren't innovative, they're generally just bad.
If you're trolled then you're already being held as infringing, so unless you're big enough to fight you're going to have to pay up - for small software firms that is likely to be a painful, perhaps fatal experience - not conducive to innovation.
If you attempt to subsequently avoid the patent but you are a small firm, the troll can still sue again, and you don't have the money to fight them, so you'll pay again. The only way to avoid the troll is to write a completely new piece of software in a new problem domain, which may have patent issues of its own.
There is a national average, and being nearly 20 points off of it is pretty significant statistically I would think. It certainly isn't a numbers game, but your point seems to be playing into it.
Rather than trying to fix on a number, it might be more productive to take a common sense approach. If it walk like a duck, etc. (On the other hand a good lawyer could convince a jury that a duck is not actually a duck by distracting their attention from the obvious to myriad details.)
Sorry, but I don't see this as a "common sense" conclusion. I see it as being informed mainly by bias, if only because the important questions I have posed cannot be answered factually by anyone. Sadly we see the pitchforks and torches come out in every thread where Apple is found defending itself against a patent lawsuit (but rarely when they are the plaintiffs). The mob tells us that the owners of the patents are trolls, the patents they hold worthless or invalid, the patent laws ridiculous, and the courts crazy if not corrupt.
Sadly we see the pitchforks and torches come out in every thread where Apple is found defending itself against a patent lawsuit (but rarely when they are the plaintiffs). The mob tells us that the owners of the patents are trolls, the patents they hold worthless or invalid, the patent laws ridiculous, and the courts crazy if not corrupt.
Have you read this particular patent? Do you consider it non-obvious? Do you have any understanding of the problem domain? What is your background here? Personally I'd be quite happy if all software patents were invalidated, including those held by Apple. This isn't about choosing sides, this is about supporting innovation. I don't dispute that Patents are critical for other industries, but the golden years of software development took place in a mostly patent free environment.
Sorry, but I don't see this as a "common sense" conclusion. I see it as being informed mainly by bias, if only because the important questions I have posed cannot be answered factually by anyone. Sadly we see the pitchforks and torches come out in every thread where Apple is found defending itself against a patent lawsuit (but rarely when they are the plaintiffs). The mob tells us that the owners of the patents are trolls, the patents they hold worthless or invalid, the patent laws ridiculous, and the courts crazy if not corrupt.
I agree with your basic argument. But it troubles me that you seem to be saying that a 20% difference is insignificant, and no cause for concern. The common sense conclusion I cited was not a judgement on the entire issue, but merely on a kind of reductionism you were using to dismiss the significance of what most would agree is a big number.
If the national unemployment average is 9%, but in California it is 29%, a difference of 20%, would you argue that California really doesn't have a problem because no one knows how much of a difference is really significant? Just seems a bit specious to me. That's all.
Have you read this particular patent? Do you consider it non-obvious? Do you have any understanding of the problem domain? What is your background here? Personally I'd be quite happy if all software patents were invalidated, including those held by Apple. This isn't about choosing sides, this is about supporting innovation. I don't dispute that Patents are critical for other industries, but the golden years of software development took place in a mostly patent free environment.
My background here is not as a patent attorney or a patent expert of any kind. Does anyone commenting here have those levels of expertise and is holding out on us? Note that I have not offered any opinion with respect to the validity of any given patent because I lack the background or knowledge to make any such judgment. I see that others are not similarly constrained, and further feel that they can out of hand dismiss if not condemn a legal process about which they also have little knowledge or expertise. Perhaps this only troubles me.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Robin Huber
I agree with your basic argument. But it troubles me that you seem to be saying that a 20% difference is insignificant, and no cause for concern. The common sense conclusion I cited was not a judgement on the entire issue, but merely on a kind of reductionism you were using to dismiss the significance of what most would agree is a big number.
If the national unemployment average is 9%, but in California it is 29%, a difference of 20%, would you argue that California really doesn't have a problem because no one knows how much of a difference is really significant? Just seems a bit specious to me. That's all.
Your analogy is specious, since it has nothing to do with the legal system and is not comparative. Without doing a ton of research, to my point I was able to find the following summary of a paper:
Quote:
Average annual conviction rates (1990?2000) of people arrested for driving under the influence of alcohol in each of New Mexico's 33 counties are described. Conviction rates vary from 58 to 95%. Rates are correlated with political conservatism, being higher where a higher proportion of voters voted for the republican presidential candidates, and with measures of crowding in the courts. Conviction rates are higher in rural than urban areas and are correlated with a low prevalence of alcohol-related problems in the population. The variance in conviction rates is higher in rural than urban areas, and higher where measures of court crowding are low.
The results suggest that political culture and the efficiency of court functioning are each independently associated with conviction rates for DWI and may also be associated in a reciprocal fashion with both low DWI arrest rates and alcohol-involved crash rates.
The justice system was not designed to be a machine. Variability does not in itself support a charge of unfairness. In fact I pointed out the alternate case for the variability in this instance, to which nobody has responded.
It's only in 'the square mile'. Medieval guild privileges still exist there.
Fascinating. But I thought Guilds were kind of proto-unions. Organizations of tradesmen to protect the "secrets" of their crafts. How did the privileges granted workers accrue to corporations run by the very class the Guilds were counterbalance to?
Comments
Both by the Supreme Court and Congress, the concept of obviousness has been tightened up considerably.
...
This is a synopsis of the current bill. You'll notice the tightening up of the obviousness requirement.
I'm not convinced it's really enough, the problem is that obviousness in this context will end up being determined by battling expert witnesses. There's no way a judge or a jury could determine obvoiusness.
Back in my youth I wrote a data structure that mapped an N-dimensional array of group elements (where N, and the group was selectable at runtime) onto an N-toroid in such a way that if you had a had a point in the array you could reach an adjacent point in constant time. It's entirely possible that I could get a patent on that, even though it is in fact nothing more than an N-dimensionally linked list of objects with a subroutine to initialize it.
It might seem non-obvious because it's obscure, but any other decent computer scientist who found himself trying to write an N-dimensional lattice gauge Monte Carlo simulation would likely come up with it too.
Programmers are all inventors, to a greater or lessor degree, and we all invariably end up treading on previously covered ground. There are probably no more than a handful of ideas a year that truly deserve a software patent.
A court shouldn't be friendly or unfriendly to anyone. It should be neutral. I think Jeff's point about legal "tourism" is a valid one. The article points out that as Marshall TX is such a small town, that everyone knows everyone--that the juries know the local lawyers and the judge knows them all. This kind of single-industry driven burg can be very incestuous and creates a real impediment to blind justice. It strongly suggests a high degree of cronyism that results show favors patent holders.
Quotes like this from the NYT article:
". . . patent holders win 78 percent of the time, compared with an average of 59 percent nationwide, according to LegalMetric, a company that tracks patent litigation."
are a legitimate cause for concern. When results are this badly skewed from the national average, doesn't that bother you at all? Brings back memories of the bad old days of southern justice when civil rights cases were routinely decided against the plaintiff.
In the real world, courts are not perfect. They do not have the same batting average on any number of types of cases.
I am actually surprised by all the hay being made about the difference between a 59% and 78% difference in ruling for plaintiffs. How much should the difference be in order for the results to be considered "neutral" in your opinion? 10%? 5%? 2%? Is this not just a numbers game?
Could it also be that defendants are granted too much opportunity to create delays and obstructions in other federal courts? Could it not be that other courts would rule more favorably for plaintiffs in patent cases if they adopted similar rules of operation? I have no idea, but then neither does anyone else commenting on this article. And yet, the gross assumption is that this particular court is not neutral. The only way I can see of coming to this conclusion absent critical facts is to be biased against plaintiffs in patent cases. And very clearly, a lot of people commenting in this thread are very much biased in that direction.
You would have to prove that statement, and it will be an awfully difficult one to prove.
Why would I have to prove anything? Legally it makes no difference whether a patent was created in order to make a product or simply to troll. Intent isn't part of patent law.
Politically proof is obviously irrelevant because what will matter is lobbying. For as long as software patents remain popular with big industry players they will continue to exist in pretty much their present form.
But the second part of my statement is pretty obvious. Look at the vast amount of public domain software, not just modern open-source but old school PD too. Then compare it with the relatively small number of patents. It's far easier for a coder to make a program than a patent, otherwise we'd be patent lawyers.
Genuine programmers just write code, else Visicalc would have been patented.
http://www.techdirt.com/articles/200...835229_F.shtml
I'm not convinced it's really enough, the problem is that obviousness in this context will end up being determined by battling expert witnesses. There's no way a judge or a jury could determine obvoiusness.
Back in my youth I wrote a data structure that mapped an N-dimensional array of group elements (where N, and the group was selectable at runtime) onto an N-toroid in such a way that if you had a had a point in the array you could reach an adjacent point in constant time. It's entirely possible that I could get a patent on that, even though it is in fact nothing more than an N-dimensionally linked list of objects with a subroutine to initialize it.
It might seem non-obvious because it's obscure, but any other decent computer scientist who found himself trying to write an N-dimensional lattice gauge Monte Carlo simulation would likely come up with it too.
Programmers are all inventors, to a greater or lessor degree, and we all invariably end up treading on previously covered ground. There are probably no more than a handful of ideas a year that truly deserve a software patent.
The term for obviousness includes the part which refers to the competent worker in that field. They don't mean obvious by a 6th grade graduate. In your case, it would mean anyone who could, and might figure it out for themselves if presented with the problem. And that's another thing most people don't understand about patents. A problem has to be stated for the solution to become obvious, or not, as the case may be.
People don't operate in a vacuum. If a problem isn't present, they won't think of a solution to it. So, as you say, anyone in your position would have come up with this solution. That's not demeaning you, as you've said it yourself.
The problem with the patent office isn't the theory of patentability, but the salaries of the examiners, the budget for them, and thus the number of them. It's a highly overworked office, and so mistakes occur. I know of a few amusing ones myself.
In addition, I know from talking to a few examiners in the course of one of my companies applying for patents that they tend to give the benefit of the doubt in cases where it might go either way. The concept is simple. If a patent is denied, then that's usually it for the entity that applies. But if it's granted, it can always be denied later.
Why would I have to prove anything? Legally it makes no difference whether a patent was created in order to make a product or simply to troll. Intent isn't part of patent law.
Politically proof is obviously irrelevant because what will matter is lobbying. For as long as software patents remain popular with big industry players they will continue to exist in pretty much their present form.
But the second part of my statement is pretty obvious. Look at the vast amount of public domain software, not just modern open-source but old school PD too. Then compare it with the relatively small number of patents. It's far easier for a coder to make a program than a patent, otherwise we'd be patent lawyers.
Genuine programmers just write code, else Visicalc would have been patented.
http://www.techdirt.com/articles/200...835229_F.shtml
You made the statement. Why make it if it doesn't matter, or isn't germaine?
I agree that intent isn't part of patent law. Your statement read as though you thought it was. As you're stating that it isn't, we can forget about it.
I am actually surprised by all the hay being made about the difference between a 59% and 78% difference in ruling for plaintiffs. How much should the difference be in order for the results to be considered "neutral" in your opinion? 10%? 5%? 2%? Is this not just a numbers game?
There is a national average, and being nearly 20 points off of it is pretty significant statistically I would think. It certainly isn't a numbers game, but your point seems to be playing into it.
Rather than trying to fix on a number, it might be more productive to take a common sense approach. If it walk like a duck, etc. (On the other hand a good lawyer could convince a jury that a duck is not actually a duck by distracting their attention from the obvious to myriad details.)
You made the statement. Why make it if it doesn't matter, or isn't germaine?
I made a statement you said I needed to prove it, I simply pointed out that I had absolutely no need to prove it, it could stand in this discussion simply as opinion. One could just as easily say that if you disagree with it you must disprove it, or prove your own claim that these patent holders are mostly inventors who were unable to bring their product to market, despite their pockets being deep enough to both patent their idea and sue to enforce it.
Can you prove
The problem with the patent office isn't the theory of patentability, but the salaries of the examiners
Since many egregious patents stand up in court it clearly isn't just a problem of patent office salaries.
Can you prove
In this sense, even a lawsuit from a troll aids innovation. If a company doesn't want to pay them, let them find another way of doing it, that's the entire point.
(Good luck with that one)
You make statements that you cannot prove all the time, are they not germaine? Do they not matter? Would you like me to demand proof everytime you make one in future? I strongly suggest you drop this line because it isn't going to go well for you.
Oh and the idea that a troll aids innovation is completely ridiculous on many levels.
I'd live happily on 1/10th of 1/10th of that payout. Truly amazing how patent trolls get away with this.
$80k is enough to sustain your happiness forever? You're indeed a simple man. Good for you.
You reckon 1/10th of $8,000,000 is "$80k" do you?
As for your username...
AppleInsider at its finest
There is a national average, and being nearly 20 points off of it is pretty significant statistically I would think. It certainly isn't a numbers game, but your point seems to be playing into it.
Rather than trying to fix on a number, it might be more productive to take a common sense approach. If it walk like a duck, etc. (On the other hand a good lawyer could convince a jury that a duck is not actually a duck by distracting their attention from the obvious to myriad details.)
Sorry, but I don't see this as a "common sense" conclusion. I see it as being informed mainly by bias, if only because the important questions I have posed cannot be answered factually by anyone. Sadly we see the pitchforks and torches come out in every thread where Apple is found defending itself against a patent lawsuit (but rarely when they are the plaintiffs). The mob tells us that the owners of the patents are trolls, the patents they hold worthless or invalid, the patent laws ridiculous, and the courts crazy if not corrupt.
Not surprising, given that corporations spend far more on lobbying than individuals to.
The US is not a democracy, but a republic. This is by design.
A republic which gives corporations the same rights as citizens is becoming an oligarchy.
Sadly we see the pitchforks and torches come out in every thread where Apple is found defending itself against a patent lawsuit (but rarely when they are the plaintiffs). The mob tells us that the owners of the patents are trolls, the patents they hold worthless or invalid, the patent laws ridiculous, and the courts crazy if not corrupt.
Have you read this particular patent? Do you consider it non-obvious? Do you have any understanding of the problem domain? What is your background here? Personally I'd be quite happy if all software patents were invalidated, including those held by Apple. This isn't about choosing sides, this is about supporting innovation. I don't dispute that Patents are critical for other industries, but the golden years of software development took place in a mostly patent free environment.
A republic which gives corporations the same rights as citizens is becoming an oligarchy.
In the City of London corporations can even vote
Sorry, but I don't see this as a "common sense" conclusion. I see it as being informed mainly by bias, if only because the important questions I have posed cannot be answered factually by anyone. Sadly we see the pitchforks and torches come out in every thread where Apple is found defending itself against a patent lawsuit (but rarely when they are the plaintiffs). The mob tells us that the owners of the patents are trolls, the patents they hold worthless or invalid, the patent laws ridiculous, and the courts crazy if not corrupt.
I agree with your basic argument. But it troubles me that you seem to be saying that a 20% difference is insignificant, and no cause for concern. The common sense conclusion I cited was not a judgement on the entire issue, but merely on a kind of reductionism you were using to dismiss the significance of what most would agree is a big number.
If the national unemployment average is 9%, but in California it is 29%, a difference of 20%, would you argue that California really doesn't have a problem because no one knows how much of a difference is really significant? Just seems a bit specious to me. That's all.
In the City of London corporations can even vote
Didn't know that. Seems to me the U.S. once broke away from England over differences in governing.
Didn't know that. Seems to me the U.S. once broke away from England over differences in governing.
It's only in 'the square mile'. Medieval guild privileges still exist there.
Have you read this particular patent? Do you consider it non-obvious? Do you have any understanding of the problem domain? What is your background here? Personally I'd be quite happy if all software patents were invalidated, including those held by Apple. This isn't about choosing sides, this is about supporting innovation. I don't dispute that Patents are critical for other industries, but the golden years of software development took place in a mostly patent free environment.
My background here is not as a patent attorney or a patent expert of any kind. Does anyone commenting here have those levels of expertise and is holding out on us? Note that I have not offered any opinion with respect to the validity of any given patent because I lack the background or knowledge to make any such judgment. I see that others are not similarly constrained, and further feel that they can out of hand dismiss if not condemn a legal process about which they also have little knowledge or expertise. Perhaps this only troubles me.
I agree with your basic argument. But it troubles me that you seem to be saying that a 20% difference is insignificant, and no cause for concern. The common sense conclusion I cited was not a judgement on the entire issue, but merely on a kind of reductionism you were using to dismiss the significance of what most would agree is a big number.
If the national unemployment average is 9%, but in California it is 29%, a difference of 20%, would you argue that California really doesn't have a problem because no one knows how much of a difference is really significant? Just seems a bit specious to me. That's all.
Your analogy is specious, since it has nothing to do with the legal system and is not comparative. Without doing a ton of research, to my point I was able to find the following summary of a paper:
Average annual conviction rates (1990?2000) of people arrested for driving under the influence of alcohol in each of New Mexico's 33 counties are described. Conviction rates vary from 58 to 95%. Rates are correlated with political conservatism, being higher where a higher proportion of voters voted for the republican presidential candidates, and with measures of crowding in the courts. Conviction rates are higher in rural than urban areas and are correlated with a low prevalence of alcohol-related problems in the population. The variance in conviction rates is higher in rural than urban areas, and higher where measures of court crowding are low.
The results suggest that political culture and the efficiency of court functioning are each independently associated with conviction rates for DWI and may also be associated in a reciprocal fashion with both low DWI arrest rates and alcohol-involved crash rates.
http://www.sciencedirect.com/science...01457505002071
The justice system was not designed to be a machine. Variability does not in itself support a charge of unfairness. In fact I pointed out the alternate case for the variability in this instance, to which nobody has responded.
It's only in 'the square mile'. Medieval guild privileges still exist there.
Fascinating. But I thought Guilds were kind of proto-unions. Organizations of tradesmen to protect the "secrets" of their crafts. How did the privileges granted workers accrue to corporations run by the very class the Guilds were counterbalance to?