On Fri, May 16, 2014 at 01:17:09PM -0400, Joshua Gay wrote: > I don't understand how these things work well enough to formulate my > own opinion, but I've been hearing mixed opinions on precedent. Here > is Jonathan Band's take on the matter of precedent, > <http://www.project-disco.org/intellectual-property/051214-further-reflections-on-oracle-v-google/>: > > "1. The Federal Circuit’s decision is not binding precedent in any > other case in any district court anywhere in the country. Because > this case arose in the Ninth Circuit, the Federal Circuit was > required to apply Ninth Circuit precedent. But its interpretation of > Ninth Circuit precedent is not binding on district courts in the > Ninth Circuit, or any other circuit. Thus, a district court in San > Jose or Seattle is free to ignore the Federal Circuit’s > misinterpretation of Sega v. Accolade and Sony v. Connectix." > > "To be sure, other district courts may find the Federal Circuit’s > reasoning to be persuasive, but it is not binding. And as these > district courts dig into the Federal Circuit’s reasoning, they > quickly will conclude that it is not that persuasive. The Federal > Circuit certainly undermined its credibility with its assertion that > Google and its amici believe that software should not be protectable > under copyright. The Federal Circuit itself flatly contradicts this > assertion when it observed that"
FWIW I believe what Jonathan says about precedent here is correct. - RF
