When being "Iffy" is being accurate
My friends and staff sometimes wonder why I don't post about case decisions that make it into the general press, or are found on law related websites. I've tried to explain that while journalists can freely speak with only a marginal understanding of the decision that was handed down, I feel the need to really research the decision.
Always that means read the decision itself, not the report of the decision. Sometimes it means reading some of the cases the decision cites and the history of the case -- and that takes time, which I often don't have in the morning when I read these things. Then in the afternoon or evening when I might have had time and have done my research, those who specialize in that area of law have often posted on their blogs already. So why should I repeat them?
The problem is that journalists usually write articles about legal decisions as if they are clear, easy to understand and are handed down in a vacuum. This is far from the case. And this article, which is written the way I think many articles should be written, shows why in just some of it's choice of words.
Headline: "Marvell May Have Lost Battle to Suppress Voice Mail in Trade Secrets Case"
First paragraph: "Marvell Semiconductor Inc. appears to have lost a long battle to suppress a voice mail at the center of a major trade secrets case brought by rival Jasmine Networks Inc."
But the lead attorney of one of the parties is quoted as saying: "We're back where we were the day the court of appeal issued its opinion," he said. "The voice mail is not privileged and the injunction is gone."
So why do I say the headline and first paragraph, which are so equivocal are actually more accurate. Because the "decision" being reported is a decision not to hear the case. That sends it back to the lower court, but does not always close the door to further appeals.
The final effect of this decision is not known. Which is why I was happy to see "may" and "appear" front and center in the article.
