I think judges should have some basic knowledge of what they are ruling

on so he can make an intelligent/reasonable ruling. This ruling, if I

understood correctly, hinges on the fact that TorrentSpy doesn't log

users. It would seem since they are being sued, and there is the issue

of discovery why didn't the judge order them to turn on their logs

instead? If she had any basic idea of how RAM really works I don't see

how she would have ruled the way she did. I know people that still

don't know the difference between RAM and diskspace (That other memory

:)). Once I've explained the difference, they have a better

understanding of why some things are saved and others are not if their

computer locks up or reboots.

It just seems wrong that any business should have to dump money into a

process that is being used so that they can incriminate themselves.

It's one thing to subpoena documents that already exists, it's quite

another to have to create the incriminating evidence for the one suing

you.

Regards

Rodney

> -----Original Message-----

> Technically a judge shouldn't need to know the ins and outs of

> technical aspects of a case - that's what the experts are for.

> However, I agree that screw ups do happen. There was a recent case in

> the UK where a judge admitted he didn't know what a website was...

==============================================================================

CONFIDENTIALITY NOTICE: The information in this electronic message (including any attachments) is confidential and may be privileged or proprietary. If you are not the intended recipient, any dissemination, disclosure, copying, downloading, or other use of the information is prohibited and unauthorized, and may be unlawful, regardless of address or routing. If you are not the intended recipient, please inform the sender immediately and permanently delete and destroy the original and any copies of this message, including any attachments.

==============================================================================