3 ms·

But if the second question resolves the issue even when the first is construed in favor of the other party, what's the rationale for demanding the court focus o

by btilly 6y ago

But if the second question resolves the issue even when the first is construed in favor of the other party, what's the rationale for demanding the court focus on the first question? The main influence of the Supreme Court is in setting precedent. In the absence of a ruling from the Supreme Court, the previous ruling from the Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit is binding precedent on the whole country that APIs are copyrightable. That means that the most important precedents set in this case are still an issue for the software industry.

azernik 6y ago
> In the absence of a ruling from the Supreme Court, the previous ruling from the Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit is binding precedent on the whole country that APIs are copyrightable. This is not true - other circuit courts are free to set their own, conflicting precedent. Each circuit's decisions are binding only on its own judges, and suggestive but not binding on other circuits. Circuits deciding differently (a "circuit split") is uncommon, and considered urgent grounds for the Supreme Court to take up a test case to resolve the ambiguity; but it's not considered a "breaking" of precedent by either circuit, just a difference of interpretation for the Supreme Court to resolve
- btilly 6y ago
  For most circuits what you say would be true. But the Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit is special. As http://www.cafc.uscourts.gov/the-court/court-jurisdiction http://www.cafc.uscourts.gov/the-court/court-jurisdiction says, their jurisdiction is national and determined by subject matter. That said I do not actually know whether they would be binding on another circuit court. But they are definitely binding on all federal courts lower than that. However that question is sort of moot. It is extremely easy for the entity filing the case for infringement to include something about patent or trademark in the suit, which guarantees that you wind up in the Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit. Where that ruling is binding.
  - dragonwriter 6y ago
    > their jurisdiction is national and determined by subject matter. Copyright is not part of their subject matter jurisdiction. > However that question is sort of moot. It is extremely easy for the entity filing the case for infringement to include something about patent or trademark in the suit, which guarantees that you wind up in the Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit. Where that ruling is binding. It’s not, though; outside of its own subject matter jurisdiction, CAFC is bound by the law of the Circuit to which the trial court belongs, which it, in theory, merely applies. Another case coming up through the Northern District of California like Oracle v. Google did would be governed vy Ninth Circuit, not Federal Circuit, copyright precedent even if heard in the Federal Circuit because of other issues in the case.
deleted 6y ago
[deleted]
dragonwriter 6y ago
> the previous ruling from the Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit is binding precedent on the whole country that APIs are copyrightable. No, its not. The CAFC’s interpretation of Ninth Amendment case law on copyrightability in this case (before and after the Supreme Court sidestepped it) is binding on no one except future courts hearing cases on issues and between parties so closely related to those in Oracle v. Google that res judicata rather than rules of precedent is the deciding factor

by btilly 6y ago

azernik 6y ago

> In the absence of a ruling from the Supreme Court, the previous ruling from the Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit is binding precedent on the whole country that APIs are copyrightable. This is not true - other circuit courts are free to set their own, conflicting precedent. Each circuit's decisions are binding only on its own judges, and suggestive but not binding on other circuits. Circuits deciding differently (a "circuit split") is uncommon, and considered urgent grounds for the Supreme Court to take up a test case to resolve the ambiguity; but it's not considered a "breaking" of precedent by either circuit, just a difference of interpretation for the Supreme Court to resolve

btilly 6y ago
For most circuits what you say would be true. But the Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit is special. As http://www.cafc.uscourts.gov/the-court/court-jurisdiction http://www.cafc.uscourts.gov/the-court/court-jurisdiction says, their jurisdiction is national and determined by subject matter. That said I do not actually know whether they would be binding on another circuit court. But they are definitely binding on all federal courts lower than that. However that question is sort of moot. It is extremely easy for the entity filing the case for infringement to include something about patent or trademark in the suit, which guarantees that you wind up in the Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit. Where that ruling is binding.
- dragonwriter 6y ago
  > their jurisdiction is national and determined by subject matter. Copyright is not part of their subject matter jurisdiction. > However that question is sort of moot. It is extremely easy for the entity filing the case for infringement to include something about patent or trademark in the suit, which guarantees that you wind up in the Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit. Where that ruling is binding. It’s not, though; outside of its own subject matter jurisdiction, CAFC is bound by the law of the Circuit to which the trial court belongs, which it, in theory, merely applies. Another case coming up through the Northern District of California like Oracle v. Google did would be governed vy Ninth Circuit, not Federal Circuit, copyright precedent even if heard in the Federal Circuit because of other issues in the case.

deleted 6y ago

[deleted]

dragonwriter 6y ago

> the previous ruling from the Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit is binding precedent on the whole country that APIs are copyrightable. No, its not. The CAFC’s interpretation of Ninth Amendment case law on copyrightability in this case (before and after the Supreme Court sidestepped it) is binding on no one except future courts hearing cases on issues and between parties so closely related to those in Oracle v. Google that res judicata rather than rules of precedent is the deciding factor