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.
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.
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.
