Re: [opendocument-users] New question (2): Reference implementation?

[marbux <marbux@gmail.com>]

On Sun, May 17, 2009 at 11:44 PM, Chris Puttick
<chris.puttick@thehumanjourney.net> wrote:
>
> Interesting. IANAL, but my understanding of UK law is that a law that no one complies with becomes a law under which no prosecutions can stand - is where the interests of justice override that of parliament. Further, a law that is effectively impossible to comply with would also be over ridden by a higher court.

Hi, Chris,

I'm not wise enough to comment on the current state of UK law in
relevant regard. But in the U.S. we did inherit from the Brits King
Cnut's wisdom about laws that command the impossible. E.g.,
<http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/King_Canute#Ruler_of_the_waves>. I
suspect that doctrine is alive and well in the U.K.

I'm not aware of any U.S. direct equivalent of the proposition that a
law no one complies with being nullified. That isn't to say that the
law is never ignored or construed differently by our judges or juries
because of their own notions of what's right and wrong. Mankind can
proclaim the Rule of Law, but there are still fallible human beings
operating its controls. Law is far more malleable than computer
science.

Likewise, I've run across no equivalent rulings in the WTO Dispute
Resolution Process. But I've read far less than the complete body of
that case law.

Best regards,

Paul


-- 
Universal Interoperability Council
<http:www.universal-interop-council.org>