|
From: | Rjack |
Subject: | Re: Tom Tom and Microsofts Linux patent lock-down .. |
Date: | Sat, 04 Apr 2009 15:28:32 -0400 |
User-agent: | Thunderbird 2.0.0.21 (Windows/20090302) |
Rahul Dhesi wrote:
Rjack <user@example.net> writes:The CAFC's copyright decisions are utterly irrelevant to U.S. copyright law. The fact that "the CAFC ignored it's ownprecedent" simply demonstrates your confused mind since the CAFC has no copyright law precedent.Rjack is assuming that stare decisi applies only to binding precedents. But actually, stare decisis refers to a much broader principle that essentially says that the law ought to be stable and predictable. In this broaer sense, stare decisis will make the CAFC's ruling persuasive to and, as a practical matter, essentially binding upon, every other court in the US. Courts will rule differently from the CAFC only if they see the CAFC's ruling as somehow grossly erroneous.
Which parts of the following are you failing to grasp Rahul? "Technically, the Federal Circuit's ruling will have no precedential, effect. Because of an unusual quirk in US law, the court had to apply the legal standards of a sister appellate court, the 9th Circuit Court of Appeals; and the Federal Circuit's interpretation of 9th Circuit law has no precedential value. "Even a future Federal Circuit case on this area of the law must look again to the regional [9th] circuit and not the Federal Circuit interpretation," according to Harold Wegner, a partner in the Washington, DC office of Foley & Lardner." http://www.ip-watch.org/weblog/2008/08/26/us-court-finds-open-source-licences-enforceable-big-impact-seen-on-us-copyright-law/ Sincerely, Rjack :)
[Prev in Thread] | Current Thread | [Next in Thread] |