<html><head><meta http-equiv="content-type" content="text/html; charset=utf-8"></head><body dir="auto"><div>Overall, as in patent law, the US has not been able to resolve the tensions between the new and dynamic ict sector and the old industries like pharma and Hollywood... And this plays out in various fora... This has been going for ages and the 'can do' incremental changes have been stuck in a dialectical cul de sac for a while... And power then is determinant rather that a predictable principle or approach... </div><div><br></div><div>On prosecutorial immunity, that is difficult to judge for me... What is worrying about the case though is that reform actions are treated this way... And to have a university behind it at that... <br><br>...,...</div><div><br>On 19 Jan 2013, at 8:16 PM, John Curran <<a href="mailto:jcurran@istaff.org">jcurran@istaff.org</a>> wrote:<br><br></div><blockquote type="cite"><div><meta http-equiv="Content-Type" content="text/html charset=iso-8859-1"><div>On Jan 19, 2013, at 6:18 AM, Riaz K Tayob <<a href="mailto:riaz.tayob@gmail.com">riaz.tayob@gmail.com</a>> wrote:</div><div><br class="Apple-interchange-newline"><blockquote type="cite">
<meta http-equiv="content-type" content="text/html; charset=ISO-8859-1">
<div bgcolor="#FFFFFF" text="#000000">
<a class="controls gray next"></a>
<div id="story_head" class="clearfix">
<div id="disqus_title">[The Panglossian world of US
Exceptionalism.... of course these matters are discussed and
debated, but dare to do anything about it and then those will be
put in their place, or no?]<br></div></div></div></blockquote><div></div><blockquote type="cite"><div><br></div></blockquote><blockquote type="cite"><div bgcolor="#FFFFFF" text="#000000"><div id="story_head" class="clearfix"><div id="disqus_title">
The Overzealous Prosecution of Aaron Swartz</div>
<div class="bview_story_meta">
<cite class="byline">
By
<a class="author" href="http://www.bloomberg.com/view/bios/stephen-carter/">Stephen
L. Carter</a>
</cite>
<cite class="byline story_time">
<span style="display: inline;" class="datestamp" bglocalize="true" bgdatestamp="mmm d, yyyy h:MM TT Z" epoch="1358465406000">Jan 18, 2013 1:30 AM GMT+0200</span>
</cite>
</div></div></div></blockquote><div><blockquote type="cite">...</blockquote></div><div><br></div><div>Riaz - </div><div> </div><div>A very good question; I personally don't subscribe to a view of US Exceptionalism </div><div>(that's likely because I've travelled a bit and can more readily make comparisons),</div><div>but do see a system that excels at incremental improvement. In this particular</div><div>case, I do believe that the particular statute used in Swartz's prosecution will be</div><div>amended to be more reasonable (see my earlier ICG posting reference to Time's</div><div>article on same by Sam Gustin)</div><div><br></div><div>Regarding the larger question raised by Carter's article, it is a bit more complex than </div><div>depicted, since lowering the qualified immunity for prosecutors (as a way of raising the </div><div>threshold to pursue cases), may also, if not very carefully done, incidentally raise the </div><div>threshold for being able to _drop a case_ (i.e. the potential result where some form </div><div>of conviction must be obtained less the prosecutor face increased personal liability) </div><div>Change in this area would definitely benefit from informed discourse, and to the extent </div><div>that one can claim that happens among US lawmakers, then perhaps someday there </div><div>will be some productive outcome on this larger question as well...</div><div><br></div><div>FYI,</div><div>/John</div><div><br></div><div>Disclaimers: My personal views alone. No pursuit of action against anyone is intended</div><div>by this email; parties feeling overly prosecuted as a result should seek medical care for </div><div>potential mental health issues.</div><div><br></div></div></div></blockquote></body></html>