*
Bedford Ramblings
Steve Mills

Why is one court case referred to as "the law"?

Posted Wednesday, September 15, 2010, at 9:56 AM
Comments
View 8 comments
Note: The nature of the Internet makes it impractical for our staff to review every comment. Please note that those who post comments on this website may do so using a screen name, which may or may not reflect a website user's actual name. Readers should be careful not to assign comments to real people who may have names similar to screen names. Refrain from obscenity in your comments, and to keep discussions civil, don't say anything in a way your grandmother would be ashamed to read.
  • Because usually the first types of issues that result in "Caselaw", which sets a precedent over similar cases that come after it.

    For example, Software, MP3, didn't exist 25 years ago in the massmarket. When copying digital material started to become mainstream, there was no law protecting it.

    -- Posted by Evil Monkey on Wed, Sep 15, 2010, at 10:11 AM
  • And after reading the ruling, this will go to the Supreme Court because I don't see how someone can be liable for anything if they haven't opened the box and know the Terms and Conditions.

    -- Posted by Evil Monkey on Wed, Sep 15, 2010, at 10:18 AM
  • I saw that Autodesk said they did not sell the previous owner the software, just the rights. Did they not expect that the original licensee was going to sell the software. just rent it?

    It would seem to me that Autodesk be required to buy back their software if they do not allow the company to sell it. After it is sold, it should be the new owner's right to sell it if they wish, not copy it and sell it, just sell the original.

    "The Ninth Circuit acknowledged the seriousness of some of these concerns, but held that its hands were tied by prior circuit decisions. Hopefully, the en banc court will be willing to reconsider those decisions".

    Again, why is a possibly bad ruling on a case heard before suddenly become so restrictive to future hearings? To me, that is just an excuse for not doing what is right in the case before them.

    If I buy a camera lens that is patented, do I just rent it or can I sell it if I no longer use the camera? I understand and appreciate the need for patents, but this ruling needs more definition, in my mind anyway.

    -- Posted by stevemills on Wed, Sep 15, 2010, at 11:21 AM
  • The problem is the judges lack the understanding of the technology, they feel that the product is not a tangible piece of property but a digital one. The fact remains the product is in fact tangible when unopened. This is what needs to be stated from the start.

    -- Posted by Evil Monkey on Wed, Sep 15, 2010, at 2:49 PM
  • To answer one of your questions: A judgement affects only the circuit where it is rendered. So, this case will only affect those states covered by the Ninth Circuit. To cover the whole US, it has to go to the Supreme Court.

    Talking about renting or owning, remember the big brouhaha some yeara ago with the equine photographers.

    -- Posted by Tyger on Wed, Sep 15, 2010, at 8:50 PM
  • Huh?

    Just kidding, but not entirely.

    I may have mis-interpreted what you wrote, but it seems as if any law or ruling is law unless you question it and and it is determined to NOT be legal?

    Sounds like a lot of good work for lawyers.

    -- Posted by stevemills on Fri, Oct 1, 2010, at 7:20 PM
  • If it took you a couple of years, better give me some time to read this a few times.

    -- Posted by stevemills on Mon, Oct 4, 2010, at 8:08 PM
  • Did I happen to hit a subject you love?

    -- Posted by stevemills on Tue, Oct 5, 2010, at 8:55 PM
Respond to this blog

Posting a comment requires free registration: