Then:

wikipedia

Background

U.S. law distinguishes between two types of action figures for determining tariffs: dolls, which are defined to include human figures, and toys, which include “nonhuman creatures”.

Because duties on dolls were higher than on toys, Marvel Comics subsidiary Toy Biz argued before the U.S. Court of International Trade, that their action figures (including the X-Men and Fantastic Four) represented “nonhuman creatures” and were subject to the lower tariff rates for toys instead of the higher ones for dolls.

On January 3, 2003, after examining more than 60 action figures, Judge Judith Barzilay ruled in their favor, saving Toy Biz money on future tariffs and granting reimbursement for import taxes on previous toys.

Reaction

Because a common theme in Marvel Comics had been the struggle for mutants like the X-Men to prove their humanity, the case shocked comic book writer Chuck Austen and numerous fans. Marvel responded to these concerns by claiming “our heroes are living, breathing human beings? but humans who have extraordinary abilities … A decision that the X-Men figures indeed do have ‘nonhuman’ characteristics further proves our characters have special, out-of-this world powers.”

Now:

reghardware

PlayStation 2 is not a PC, says Court of Appeal

Sony’s PlayStation 2 is officially a games console and not a computer, according to an English court judgment that denies the electronics firm a €50m (£34.2m) rebate for import duties.

Sony has been pursuing legal action for five years in attempts to have the machine classified as a “digital processing unit” and not a games console. Games machines attracted an EU import duty of 1.7 per cent in 2001, falling year by year to zero by 2004; but computers attracted no duty in that time.

[…]

In a stinging rebuke to Sony’s legal team, Chadwick also took issue with the manner in which the case was conducted.

“In my view the skeleton argument filed in this court on behalf of Sony goes beyond what can be regarded as acceptable written advocacy: it exceeds the bounds of propriety,” he wrote. “I am not protesting about its inordinate length, nor about its discursive quality, nor about its frequent and unnecessary resort to hyperbole, although all those unappealing features are present.

“My concern is with the repeated aspersions that are cast in that document on the intellectual honesty of the High Court Judge from whose decision this appeal is brought,” he wrote.

Links c/o Bart Blanquart & Bill Sommerfeld