[Top][All Lists]

[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next][Date Index][Thread Index]

Re: Tom Tom and Microsofts Linux patent lock-down ..

From: Rjack
Subject: Re: Tom Tom and Microsofts Linux patent lock-down ..
Date: Sat, 04 Apr 2009 15:28:32 -0400
User-agent: Thunderbird (Windows/20090302)

Rahul Dhesi wrote:
Rjack <> writes:

The CAFC's copyright decisions are utterly irrelevant to U.S. copyright law. The fact that "the CAFC ignored it's own
precedent" 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."

Rjack :)

reply via email to

[Prev in Thread] Current Thread [Next in Thread]