Hacker Newsnew | past | comments | ask | show | jobs | submitlogin

A motion for injunction asks the court to make some party do or not do something. Injunction orders have lots of routine but fact-specific details. Anyone filing a motion for injunction will file a proposed order, to save the court the hassle of pulling those details from the motion and typing them into an order, and also to eliminate any "loss in translation" from that process.

Lawyers know that submitting a proposed order is routine (not just for injunctions, but almost any motion), and that the judge will strike or rewrite anything he or she does not agree with. But when you phrase it the way the article does--that the media companies get to write the order (as if everyone else doesn't)--that falsely implies special treatment and influence.



Except that not all judges strike things. A lot just rubber stamp whatever the Big Co rights holders has submitted.


Then that should be the argument, not the drafting of the order.


Citation needed.


To me "initially drafted" implied exactly what you're saying. Feels like you're nitpicking.


It's like a pull request.

The court doesn't want you to say "this code is dumb, it should sort numbers better."

The court does want you to say "here is how the code should sort numbers: <diff.txt>" And the opposing side can critique your diff.txt.

If you cannot arrange your thoughts sufficiently to get into the second format, you do not belong in the courtroom yet.




Guidelines | FAQ | Lists | API | Security | Legal | Apply to YC | Contact

Search: