It's interesting to see the reasoning for each case, but it still strikes me as fundamentally arbitrary. The problem, of course, is that the rulings themselves

It's interesting to see the reasoning for each case, but it still strikes me as fundamentally arbitrary. The problem, of course, is that the rulings themselves are trying to capture a fundamentally arbitrary underlying idea: "does this rip that off?". If you asked 100 people, you'd get 100 lines drawn in different places. Given that, the logic seems to do a good job most of the time. But, at its heart, its a silly question to ask. This quote really throws it into sharp relief (although I'm sure the full decision had more supporting detail): > In Triple Town, the antagonist is a bear. In Yeti Town, the antagonist is a yeti… bears and yetis are both wild creatures. Well. To me, it just goes to show how very important ideas, perhaps core to our society, can be very poorly defined once you take a close look. That's at least a bit disturbing!