Is it true for the following opinion? I was told that the decision would be a binding precedent in all US. I am really confused by the contradiction.
> "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 The Federal Circuit’s decision is not binding precedent in any 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." -----邮件原件----- 发件人: Richard Fontana [mailto:[email protected]] 发送时间: 2014年5月17日 21:11 收件人: Joshua Gay 抄送: [email protected] 主题: Re: Oracle vs Google: APIs are copyright; appeal decision ramifications? 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 The Federal Circuit’s decision is not binding precedent in any 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
