Copyrights and patents

[Nous]

That was nowhere in any of your definitions.

A legal fiction is a fact assumed or created by courts[1] which is then used in order to help reach a decision or to apply a legal rule.​

Legal fiction - Wikipedia

Legal
fictions are creations that are assumed true in order to reach a specific legal outcome. They are used by the courts yes, that does not mean they cannot be created or enshrined by the legislature.

I guess a legislature can write and pass any group of words, but I don't know of any example where a legislature created an "assumption or supposition of law that something which is or may be false is true, or that a state of facts exists--which has never really taken place."

 

[Revoltingest]

Everything you said in #75.

You're just no fun.

 

[Curious George]

A legal fiction is a fact assumed or created by courts[1] which is then used in order to help reach a decision or to apply a legal rule.​

Legal fiction - Wikipedia


I guess a legislature can write and pass any group of words, but I don't know of any example where a legislature created an "assumption or supposition of law that something which is or may be false is true, or that a state of facts exists--which has never really taken place."

I really hope it wasn't you that misquoted Blacks Law in order to be correct here. Nothing in Blacks law dictionary says a legal fiction is created by courts or is exclusive to courts.

 

[Nous]

I really hope it wasn't you that misquoted Blacks Law in order to be correct here. Nothing in Blacks law dictionary says a legal fiction is created by courts or is exclusive to courts.

I haven't misquoted Black's Law. It doesn't make sense to say that a legislature has created a legal fiction in order to outlaw it.

 

[Nous]

You're just no fun.

You just have to get a couple of glasses of wine in me first. Then I'm hot.

 

[Curious George]

I haven't misquoted Black's Law. It doesn't make sense to say that a legislature has created a legal fiction in order to outlaw it.

You are simply mistaken Nous. Since you made me get out Black's dictionary to fact check your pedantry:

Legal fiction. (17c) An assumption that something is true even though it may be untrue, esp. In judicial reasoning to alter how a legal rule operates; specif., a device by which a legal rule or institution is diverted from its original purpose to accomplish indirectly some other object.​

See Black's Law Dictionary. 976 (9th ed. 2009).

Now I have no idea why you would add the need to outlaw something to this definition. In fact, I have no idea why this definition seems out of your grasp. But, let me highlight that if something is noted as being especially true of judicial reasoning the that is a clue that it is not exclusive to legal reasoning. Can you point to anything in this definition that makes legal fiction exclusive to judicial reasoning?

 

[Revoltingest]

You just have to get a couple of glasses of wine in me first. Then I'm hot.

I promise to not take advantage of you.

 

[Nous]

You are simply mistaken Nous. Since you made me get out Black's dictionary to fact check your pedantry:

Legal fiction. (17c) An assumption that something is true even though it may be untrue, esp. In judicial reasoning to alter how a legal rule operates; specif., a device by which a legal rule or institution is diverted from its original purpose to accomplish indirectly some other object.​

See Black's Law Dictionary. 976 (9th ed. 2009).

Now I have no idea why you would add the need to outlaw something to this definition. In fact, I have no idea why this definition seems out of your grasp. But, let me highlight that if something is noted as being especially true of judicial reasoning the that is a clue that it is not exclusive to legal reasoning. Can you point to anything in this definition that makes legal fiction exclusive to judicial reasoning?

What I quoted is from Black's ancient 2nd edition.

Why would a legislature create a legal fiction? Legislatures do not need to assume something that is not true in order to make a situation fit an abstract rule.

What are some of the legal fictions legislatures have supposedly concocted?

Now I have no idea why you would add the need to outlaw something to this definition.

Outlawing acts is the bread and butter of legislatures.

 

[Curious George]

What are some of the legal fictions legislatures have supposedly concocted?

Concocted or enshrined?

And I assume you mean beyond IP?

Well, vicarious liability, felony murder, corporate personhood to name a few.

 

[Shadow Wolf]

While I support them to a point, they are way overused and unfairly leverage power to copyright holders, regardless of whether or not they are the actual inventor (Edison is very guilty of this one) or whether or not the inventor or artist is even still alive. Copyright and patent laws need to better serve and protect inventors and creators, not those lusting for money.