Although unrealistic, there is that feeling of hopelessness that is completely real when it comes to what a large corporation is capable of…

Supposedly, in the discovery phase of a trial, these kinds of things would come out.

Of course various bush era “reforms” to the civil system make this just a tad more possible… at least they make it a bit harder for the little guy or the whistle blower to have their day in court.

Often science fiction is written as a warning about the direction society is taking or could take. I don’t see how a story about the way the law might work in the future constitutes the same sort of offense as mangling physics. It does seem hard to imagine a future in which patent law violations could be considered in a criminal court rather than a civil court, but what kind of society would do that?

Nor do I see how this is anti-business. A warning about how corporations could end up with more power in the courts than individuals doesn’t even take prescience at this point. It’s bad for business to crush the individual. Who’s going to be left to buy their stuff if they do? It’s more of a warning to business rather than being anti-business, in my opinion.

I don’t have Connor’s restraint, so here goes with the nitpicking…

1. Patent law is civil, not criminal.

2. Destroying evidence in anticipation of a court case is a good way for a lawyer to get disbarred.

3. Meese would not have been represented by your average suburban, there are famous lawyers and law professors who would be all over this case.

4. The doctors who took the sample could still be held liable for malpractice for not disclosing their financial interest as part of the informed consent.

5. The patent might not be valid anyway.

6. Michael Crichton’s Next covered this same ground, in much greater detail, and with a much more realistic story.

7. Just as physicists complain when authors mangle the physics, lawyers should get to complain when authors mangle the law. We read sci-fi too, you know.