this post was submitted on 14 Aug 2023
424 points (98.6% liked)
Technology
59692 readers
4774 users here now
This is a most excellent place for technology news and articles.
Our Rules
- Follow the lemmy.world rules.
- Only tech related content.
- Be excellent to each another!
- Mod approved content bots can post up to 10 articles per day.
- Threads asking for personal tech support may be deleted.
- Politics threads may be removed.
- No memes allowed as posts, OK to post as comments.
- Only approved bots from the list below, to ask if your bot can be added please contact us.
- Check for duplicates before posting, duplicates may be removed
Approved Bots
founded 1 year ago
MODERATORS
you are viewing a single comment's thread
view the rest of the comments
view the rest of the comments
That’s interesting, in a case like this the chances of the judge owning an HP printer are pretty high.
Would they still be allowed to rule on the case?
With something ubiquitous I don't think there is a choice.
Think of if the case involved the iPhone or Android. You literally couldn't find someone that didn't own at least one of those.
Judges recuse themselves AFAIK. An appeals court might override and say a judge shouldn't have been on it but that's pretty rare. So as long as the judges feels they can remain impartial they'll be able to preside.