Oscar Pistorius Now Convicted of Murder

Originally posted by sh76
Norm is correct.

Under American law, a judge cannot increase a charge of which a person was convicted by jury. If the jury finds the person guilty of manslaughter, the judge cannot change it to murder. This is not so much an issue of double jeopardy as it is a violation of the right to trial by jury. A judge can increase a sentence based on aggravating facto ...[text shortened]... becomes whether Pistorius' natural rights were violated, moving the discussion away from SA law.

I don't think I claimed a trial by a jury is a "Natural Right".

I read some of the decision convicting Pistorius of murder (I'll try to find the link); the appeals court claimed that the original judge erred on findings of law and that therefore the verdict could be overturned and a conviction of a higher crime imposed. Whether that is justified under SA law will be presumably decided by their Constitutional Court; obviously it could not happen under applicable law in the US.

EDIT: The decision is here (you'll have to answer a couple of annoying survey questions first): http://www.letsrun.com/news/2015/12/oscar-pistorius-found-guilty-murder-full-text-court-decision/

Originally posted by no1marauder
I don't think I claimed a trial by a jury is a "Natural Right".

I read some of the decision convicting Pistorius of murder (I'll try to find the link); the appeals court claimed that the original judge erred on findings of law and that therefore the verdict could be overturned and a conviction of a higher crime imposed. Whether that is justified under ...[text shortened]... ded by their Constitutional Court; obviously it could not happen under applicable law in the US.

Found it. Thread 139010 page 3. (It was a long time ago, but you brought up an interesting rationale.)

Originally posted by sh76
Found it. Thread 139010 page 3. (It was a long time ago, but you brought up an interesting rationale.)

Good catch; I did make an exception for "trivial" offenses.

I'm not sure I agree with that statement now, however. I'm not sure I don't agree with it either. Surely a fair adjudication of guilt or innocence would be a Natural Right and I think I was suggesting that systems that have purely judge trials wind up with such a heavy percentage of convictions that they are not "fair". I suppose in theory a judge only system could result in fair trials but I'm quite uncertain whether they ever do so in practice.

Originally posted by no1marauder
Good catch; I did make an exception for "trivial" offenses.

I'm not sure I agree with that statement now, however.

I think that if one is going to take a theory of natural rights as given then the statement that you made in the thread referenced seems to follow from them. Since the punishment meted out by the relevant authority is going to infringe on the defendants rights (life, liberty, etc.) then some mechanism to ensure the decision making is unbiased is required (*), the only means I know of is a jury. So I'm curious as to why you're moving away from your earlier statement?

(*) In the good old days of the Bloody Code in England, felonies (in other words hanging offences) required jury trials. Misdemeanors did not require a jury for the trial, but the magistrate could only have one flogged...

Originally posted by DeepThought
I think that if one is going to take a theory of natural rights as given then the statement that you made in the thread referenced seems to follow from them. Since the punishment meted out by the relevant authority is going to infringe on the defendants rights (life, liberty, etc.) then some mechanism to ensure the decision making is unbiased is require ...[text shortened]... emeanors did not require a jury for the trial, but the magistrate could only have one flogged...

I'm not so sure.

Suppose the trial judges are elected by the People and given the same power as a jury; is that substantially different from the People delegating the authority to adjudicate guilt or innocence to a jury?

Originally posted by sonhouse
As he sits out his new 12 year jail sentence, 4 years off for time served.....

Hey, have you ever dealt with patent law? Have question.

Not much, but I can pretend. 😉

The post that was quoted here has been removed

How can he be convicted if he hasn't even had the second trial? The Judge can just overturn a previous conviction and arbitrarily decide, now he has a higher charge? And that is that? Now he, Pretorius, has to fight a new decision already set up?

Originally posted by sh76
Not much, but I can pretend. 😉

Ok, here is the situation. I made a device that reads a vacuum sensor. That sensor, called a 'Capacitive Manometer' puts out a voltage from zero to 10 volts DC. Zero meaning very low vacuum and 10 volts meaning the maximum reading for that particular device, which can vary from device to device. Some devices 10 volts = 1000 Millitorr (a vacuum reading) and others 10 volts = 100 millitorr and so forth.

The company, MKS, who makes the manometer also makes a reader but costs a couple thousand bucks.

I needed a reader more portable so we can judge whether or not our various machines that use process gasses are in line, that the vacuum levels are the same so we can rule out changes in vacuum as the cause of possible problems and to keep the process we use the same from machine to machine.

So I built a portable reader that cost our company (Gulton, Inc.) only $200. The question is, can I patent such a device and if so, is there any way I can make more of them on the side, say starting my own small company to do so, or am I totally out of luck when it comes to owning anything I invent on company time?

Originally posted by sonhouse
Ok, here is the situation. I made a device that reads a vacuum sensor. That sensor, called a 'Capacitive Manometer' puts out a voltage from zero to 10 volts DC. Zero meaning very low vacuum and 10 volts meaning the maximum reading for that particular device, which can vary from device to device. Some devices 10 volts = 1000 Millitorr (a vacuum reading) and ...[text shortened]... to do so, or am I totally out of luck when it comes to owning anything I invent on company time?

I'm not a patent attorney and anything I say should not be construed as legal advice blah blah blah...

That being said, the "shopright doctrine" states that if you invent something in the course of your employment, the employee gets to keep and even patent the IP rights, but the employer maintains nonexclusive rights to use it. In other words, you would own the invention but your employer would have the right to use it. You could patent it and sell or license it as you choose to the rest of the world.

On the other hand, if your employer could show that they hired you to invent the portable device (or that this was contemplated as part of your job), the employer may be able to assert the right to the whole patent. That does not appear to be the case here.

Just from your description, I'd say there's an excellent chance that you can keep the IP rights to your invention but cannot stop your own company from using it (though you would be able to stop them from licensing it to others or sharing the technology with others).

Further reading:

https://supreme.justia.com/cases/federal/us/289/178/case.html

http://smallbusiness.findlaw.com/intellectual-property/law-regarding-the-rights-to-inventions-made-by-employees.html

http://www.nolo.com/legal-encyclopedia/who-owns-patent-rights-employer-inventor.html

etc.

I would recommend that you speak to a patent attorney in your jurisdiction. They can be expensive, but if you want to protect your IP rights, you want to file as soon as possible, preferably when only the prototype exists. If someone else gets your idea and files first, you're going to have a heck of a time proving that it was your invention. Note in this vein that an "idea" is not patentable, so even if you can show it was your idea that would not help. It's the process or design that is patentable. So filing first is very important.

Please note of course again that I am not a patent lawyer and am probably not licensed in your state and nothing I say may be taken or construed as legal advice.

Originally posted by sh76
I'm not a patent attorney and anything I say should not be construed as legal advice blah blah blah...

That being said, the "shopright doctrine" states that if you invent something in the course of your employment, the employee gets to keep and even patent the IP rights, but the employer maintains nonexclusive rights to use it. In other words, you would own ...[text shortened]... ably not licensed in your state and nothing I say may be taken or construed as legal advice.[/b]

Thanks for your non-advice🙂 I think it shows the path I need to take if I want to pursue it.

I did have another patent idea but made the mistake of showing it at a party of academics.

So when my son in law (A physicist with a Phd) went to pursue it, we found previous art on the subject and when I looked closer I saw the patent was issued about 30 miles and a few months from the place in New Mexico where I had stupidly revealed my work. It had to do with lasers and olive oil, showing I could predict how much the olive oil had been diluted with lesser oils, which is big business now. It really ticked me off when I realized I screwed my own self out of that patent.

I knew from my own work there was only basically one 'color' of the laser that gave results, within a narrow bandwidth window, other color lasers did nothing.

But a read of the patent issued showed they saw results from deep blue colors to deep red and IR.

My work showed no such thing so I have some vague hope I can drill through that patent somehow.

They also called the result 'phosphorescence' and what I and my son in law observed was more like 'Rutherford backscattering' which just says if you look at the laser beam by being in front and looking back at the laser you see a different color than if you look at the laser beam from the back following the beam from the laser inwards.

They did not mention that little effect so I may have a couple of spots to challenge that patent.

Don't know if that would do any good, if I would be successful at it though. Might be a moot point at this point in time.

I blew it and now know it.

Originally posted by no1marauder
I'm not so sure.

Suppose the trial judges are elected by the People and given the same power as a jury; is that substantially different from the People delegating the authority to adjudicate guilt or innocence to a jury?

Have you read John Grisham's non-fiction book The Innocent Man? It centers around a guy who is tried and convicted by a jury and put on death row for murder, without the slightest thread of evidence.

Electing a judge is a bad idea for the same reason juries are a bad idea. Would you want to be tried by your "peers" including people like whodey, Eladar and RJHinds, with Donald Trump presiding over the trial? Judges should be independent, and however trivial getting a law degree may be, it at least requires the judge to possess some degree of literacy.

Originally posted by KazetNagorra
Have you read John Grisham's non-fiction book The Innocent Man? It centers around a guy who is tried and convicted by a jury and put on death row for murder, without the slightest thread of evidence.

Electing a judge is a bad idea for the same reason juries are a bad idea. Would you want to be tried by your "peers" including people like whodey ...[text shortened]... getting a law degree may be, it at least requires the judge to possess some degree of literacy.

A judge can dismiss a case or reverse a conviction if he believes the evidence is insufficient.

Miscarriages of justice will happen under any system. The reason for the jury is not necessarily that the jury is always the best trier of fact. The reason is that criminal juries are a powerful bulwark against government tyranny. That "they" can't punish you until "they" can convince 12 ordinary people that you deserve to be punished has the power to stop criminal laws that violate rights from being enforced.

The William Penn and John Peter Zenger juries stopped government tyranny, not by being brilliant triers of fact but by scrutinizing and discarding unfair laws.