Dupe of https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=24364652

Oh wow, thanks! Didn't realize it was already discussed.

This one is a link to the ruling. That one links to a news article citing a Reuters article of which neither link to this PDF.

I don't understand why journalists discussing court cases don't link to the judgement (assuming it is available).

Or similarly, journalists who report on published scientific research but don't link to the journal article

The original is usually more accurate and interesting than the journalist's oversimplified (and sometimes even completely wrong) summary

That's still a dupe by HN's Rules of Dupery. Otherwise everything would be on the front page all the time forever and that's impractical.

Agreed. Perform the ritual and summon the @dang for his opinion perhaps?

It's a dupe because it's the same underlying story.

Generally it's probably best to have the best third-party article on a topic and link to the court ruling from the comments. A similar point came up earlier today: https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=24366620

Don't need to, it's in the FAQ and all over the hadith, e.g.

https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=21294461

Comments moved thither. Thanks!