If you're new here, you may want to subscribe to my RSS feed or email alerts. Thanks for visiting!
I am taking a law class this semester that has exposed me to these tons of cases (mostly United States Supreme Court) that are filled with legalese (jargon for legal jargon) that you can toss around in an argument (or a blog post!) to seem highly erudite. The Supreme Court granted certiorari…what? Come again! The Courts used the ‘strict scrutiny standard’ or ‘rational basis test’ or even, needs to prove legitimate state interests ‘beyond reasonable doubt’. Don’t be fooled by the seemingly innocuous commonplace English phases that are used. Each one of those terms has reams of explanation that define exactly what ‘reasonable’ means.
Making ‘reasonable’ demands from your parents can be vastly different from what the court thinks, or at least like to think so (I am told that you cannot use the First Amendment argument against your parents…at least not until you are 18) When the semester began, I actually enjoyed reading these cases and was briefing them like a man possessed. However, post-midterms the interest seems to have waned and we were just handed out (groan!) two of the largest cases ever creatively called Mount Laurel I and II (oh yeah, they have sequels in legal circles too…have to keep the excitement up).
Anyway, I recently discovered a case that tries to put the fun back in such long winding cases filled with legal jargon. In 2003, Beatles’ Apple Corp. sued Apple Computers for trademark violation. Of course, the entire purpose of trademark protection is to avoid confusion and as TechDirt says, it was doubtful that anyone could mistake the former for the latter. Apple Computers lawyers are arguing that “even a moron in a hurry could not be mistaken”. They are probably right but I would definitely like to see that test being cited often in court opinions. According to the “even a moron in a hurry could not be mistaken” test, we find the appellant guilty of being in a hurry and of course, for being born a moron. Now, that would rekindle my interests in reading cases again.
by Patrix | on Tuesday, April 4th, 2006 at 12:00 am | 
Business, Law . You can follow any responses to this entry through the RSS 2.0 feed.
Both comments and pings are currently closed.
April 4th, 2006 at 11:10 am reply
Now this is funny.
“even a moron in a hurry could not be mistaken”
Id like this see them try this extremely ‘credible’ argument in court.:D
April 4th, 2006 at 11:13 am reply
whoops!
Spellcheck/typocheck: ‘Id like to see them try this extremely credible argument in court.
Sheesh.
April 4th, 2006 at 1:07 pm reply
Megha, the lawyers have used it so the time when the judges will is not too far off. I don’t know if you know that a judge used a line from a movie in his opinion piece.
April 4th, 2006 at 1:31 pm reply
youre kidding?
Is using a line from a movie, feasible?
wow.
April 4th, 2006 at 1:34 pm reply
Yoho
I had a health Law class last semester… I still remember the fat book…
certiorari…..I never knew before the class that the US supreme court could actually refuse to hear a case…in most cases they did! Maybe the Indian Supreme court should start this practise too…would take care of some of the overload…
April 4th, 2006 at 2:04 pm reply
Megha, dang! somehow I can’t find the reference to that case…something about the judge calling the plaintiff an idiot. But as far as lines from movies go, it will be a while before we hear a judge say, “you had me at hello.”
Confused, cool! you do know what the heck I am talking about. Of course, the Supreme Court could do that too but I am unaware of the legal ramifications so cannot comment on that.
April 4th, 2006 at 2:38 pm reply
Patrix,
Is this the story you are looking for ?
April 4th, 2006 at 2:40 pm reply
That’s the one. Thanks, Bongo.
April 4th, 2006 at 2:54 pm reply
I do know a little bit.
I am unaware of the legal ramifications in India, but in US atleast 4 Supreme Court Judges, have to agree before the court hears the case and you hear this beautiful line…
”We grant certiorari”
Oh Boy! I love the legalese
April 4th, 2006 at 4:13 pm reply
Confused, LOL! I thought I was the only one who got high on Supreme Court legalese.
April 5th, 2006 at 1:42 pm reply
as someone who had at one time worked with trademark law, this is a new one :)