5 ms·

That’s not what the appeals court says. The appeals court says that they can’t really overrule a jury decision of the lower court, and the lawyers in that case

That’s not what the appeals court says. The appeals court says that they can’t really overrule a jury decision of the lower court, and the lawyers in that case screwed up by not contesting the case on the right merits. This ruling has nothing to do with saying “it’s okay” and everything to do with the scope of potential judgments available to the appellate court. Not a lawyer, but this seems like it’s for the best in terms of the functioning of the law, and a similar trial would likely not reach the same verdict.

rocqua 9y ago
The issue is that cases set precedent.
- sailfast 9y ago
  All verdicts set precedents, yes. That said, precedent is not law, and in this case I don't know that this judgment deviates from previous precedent at all. It appears to have been ruled narrowly on the basis of what the court was allowed to consider in the matter and does not make a judgment on the merits of the song similarities as a matter of law.
bambax 9y ago
> This ruling has nothing to do with saying “it’s okay” and everything to do with the scope of potential judgments available to the appellate court. Yes, that seems to be what the majority is saying. But could you or someone explain more? What's the point of appealing a jury decision if it can't be overruled??
- alistairSH 9y ago
  The jury can be overruled, but the facts of the case cannot be changed. New evidence cannot be introduced, new arguments are generally limited. Basically,the appeals courts in the US exist to remedy wrongs done by lower courts (failure to follow rules, bad interpretation of the law, etc). They do not rehear the case in its entirety. Appeals courts can word their decisions broadly or narrowly, in an attempt to control how much their decision can be applied to future cares.
  - alistairSH 9y ago
    Also worth noting, in instances of criminal convictions where new evidence is discovered, like DNA, often an executive or legislative remedy is required, because legally speaking, the facts of the original case are fixed.

rocqua 9y ago

The issue is that cases set precedent.

sailfast 9y ago
All verdicts set precedents, yes. That said, precedent is not law, and in this case I don't know that this judgment deviates from previous precedent at all. It appears to have been ruled narrowly on the basis of what the court was allowed to consider in the matter and does not make a judgment on the merits of the song similarities as a matter of law.

bambax 9y ago

> This ruling has nothing to do with saying “it’s okay” and everything to do with the scope of potential judgments available to the appellate court. Yes, that seems to be what the majority is saying. But could you or someone explain more? What's the point of appealing a jury decision if it can't be overruled??

alistairSH 9y ago
The jury can be overruled, but the facts of the case cannot be changed. New evidence cannot be introduced, new arguments are generally limited. Basically,the appeals courts in the US exist to remedy wrongs done by lower courts (failure to follow rules, bad interpretation of the law, etc). They do not rehear the case in its entirety. Appeals courts can word their decisions broadly or narrowly, in an attempt to control how much their decision can be applied to future cares.
- alistairSH 9y ago
  Also worth noting, in instances of criminal convictions where new evidence is discovered, like DNA, often an executive or legislative remedy is required, because legally speaking, the facts of the original case are fixed.