# You're a lawyer, prove your android client is a "person." **URL:** \ **Category:** Great Debates\ **Created:** [January 14, 2004, 7:45am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/youre-a-lawyer-prove-your-android-client-is-a-person/224373 "2004-01-14T07:45:27Z")\ **Posts on this page:** 5\ **Page:** 2
**Author:** ![Malthus](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/m/85f322/32.png) [@Malthus](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Malthus)\ **Post date:** [January 15, 2004, 3:11pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/youre-a-lawyer-prove-your-android-client-is-a-person/224373/21 "2004-01-15T15:11:55Z")
Corporations are clearly not human. They are legal “persons” for the purpose of having standing to launch or defend a lawsuit in their own name. The point of the case above is that “human beings” (meaning, as defined in that case, entities of our species) and corporations are the only entities which have the legal right to _standing_ - meaning, the right to carry on legal process in their own name. An android does not. So, an android could not sue. Someone would have to sue _concerning_ the android. And who has a legitimate interest in such a suit, other than the manufacturer? Under the case law I posted above, an android would be shit out of luck in an Ontario court. It would never even get its case heard, as (assuming this is good law, and the issue is not appealed) the manufacturer would have the case tossed on the standing issue in a preliminary motion. And then would no doubt turn the android off. ---
**Author:** ![pravnik](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/p/8edcca/32.png) [@pravnik](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/pravnik)\ **Post date:** [January 15, 2004, 8:23pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/youre-a-lawyer-prove-your-android-client-is-a-person/224373/22 "2004-01-15T20:23:25Z")
Well, first, my android client must be able to prove that he has some “money”. 😃 ---
**Author:** ![Bean\_Counter](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/b/db5fbb/32.png) [@Bean\_Counter](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Bean_Counter)\ **Post date:** [January 16, 2004, 11:02pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/youre-a-lawyer-prove-your-android-client-is-a-person/224373/23 "2004-01-16T23:02:04Z")
> [@pravnik](#): > > Well, first, my android client must be able to prove that he has some “money”. > 😃 Don’t you think that is rather short-sighted? Think about the fame of being the lawyer who defended an android in court on their status of “personhood”. Heck, the ensuing lecture circuit and book deals would be worth more than what the case could bring you in legal fees. Glad you’re not my lawyer. 😉 ---
**Author:** ![pravnik](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/p/8edcca/32.png) [@pravnik](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/pravnik)\ **Post date:** [January 16, 2004, 11:08pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/youre-a-lawyer-prove-your-android-client-is-a-person/224373/24 "2004-01-16T23:08:45Z")
> [@Bean Counter](#): > > Don’t you think that is rather short-sighted? Think about the fame of being the lawyer who defended an android in court on their status of “personhood”. Heck, the ensuing lecture circuit and book deals would be worth more than what the case could bring you in legal fees. > > Glad you’re not my lawyer. 😉 In reality, you’re right, of course. Oodles of lawyers would jump at the chance to try this case and be the next Thurgood Marshall. But hey, I see the one liner, I makes my move. 🙂 ---
**Author:** ![BrotherCadfael](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/b/977dab/32.png) [@BrotherCadfael](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/BrotherCadfael)\ **Post date:** [January 19, 2004, 7:52pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/youre-a-lawyer-prove-your-android-client-is-a-person/224373/25 "2004-01-19T19:52:58Z")
> [@pravnik](#): > > Well, first, my android client must be able to prove that he has some “money”. > 😃 “The defendant is presumed innocent until proven broke.” [Previous page](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/youre-a-lawyer-prove-your-android-client-is-a-person/224373.md?page=1)