For example, in the Men at Work vs Parasitical Copyright Squatters case, this is how it should’ve gone:
Plaintiff: Ho ho, the government has extended copyright terms to ludicrous lengths, and we pounced on this one even though it should be in the public domain by now – so pay up.
Defence: An homage to a traditional folk song that is more than fifty years old is fair use, not infringement. We’re talking a few bars, a reference – not plagiarism.
Judge: The defence is completely right, this whole thing is absurd. Case dismissed. Costs awarded against the plaintiff (a) for bringing such a flimsy case to trial, and (b) for being such a useless sponge on the backs of people who actually contribute something to this country.
And in the truly obscene abortion trial which started in Queensland today:
Prosecutor: This young woman obtained and used an anti-abortion drug which contravenes this ancient Queensland law that should probably have been repealed by now and I really wonder what other weird things are still on the statute books. What’s that, I get a pig and “a comely lass of virtue true”? Awesome!
Defence: It’s the defendant’s body and if she chooses to terminate a pregnancy it’s none of the courts’ business. Who are we to tell her she must let her body out to the State as an incubator for nine months against her will?
Judge: Good point. Righto, jury dismissed, all charges struck out. Why have we wasted our time with this nonsense? Let’s go and have lunch.
Please feel free in the comments to suggest other defences that should’ve immediately ended stupid cases.