On Tue, Oct 24, 2006 at 05:38:05PM -0700, David Schwartz wrote: ...
I am way too familiar with several cases where people were charged and convicted with violating obscure laws clearly intended for another purpose just for doing their jobs in a normal, reasonable way. Intel v. Schwartz (no relation) is a great example.
http://www.eff.org/legal/cases/Intel_v_Schwartz/schwartz_case.intro
It's quite possible (even likely, IMO) that when Florida makes it illegal to lend your driver's license to any other person, it actually means precisely that. ...
Ah, THAT is what you meant by your obscure reference to IvS. Merely that lawyers can twist anything to mean anything. Well, yes, that's what they get paid to do. Another facet of that, though, is that one needs to ask a lawyer to make sure what a law might mean [deliberate phrasing, that won't say what it DOES mean, that's the judge's job, and it might and will differ from the lawyer's interpretation in different ways depending on which judge and when]. It depends on precedent, including what judges declared they meant every other time they used the same phrasing. So it's a waste of bits for us to declare what it DOES mean, unless one of us is the judge in a case deciding this, in which case it's merely illegal or ill- advised, depending on other circumstances. [This is why Microsoft is still one company.] -- Joe Yao ----------------------------------------------------------------------- This message is not an official statement of OSIS Center policies.