Groklaw - Digging for Truth

	When you want to know more...

Home
Archives
Site Map
Search
About Groklaw
Awards
Legal Research
Timelines

ApplevSamsung
ApplevSamsung p.2
ArchiveExplorer
Autozone
Bilski
Cases
Cast: Lawyers
Comes v. MS
Contracts/Documents
Courts
DRM
Gordon v MS
GPL
Grokdoc
HTML How To
IPI v RH
IV v. Google
Legal Docs
Lodsys
MS Litigations
MSvB&N
News Picks
Novell v. MS
Novell-MS Deal
ODF/OOXML
OOXML Appeals
OraclevGoogle
Patents
ProjectMonterey
Psystar
Quote Database
Red Hat v SCO
Salus Book
SCEA v Hotz
SCO Appeals
SCO Bankruptcy
SCO Financials
SCO Overview
SCO v IBM
SCO v Novell
SCO:Soup2Nuts
SCOsource
Sean Daly
Software Patents
Switch to Linux
Transcripts
Unix Books

Gear

Groklaw Gear

You won't find me on Facebook

Donate

No Legal Advice

The information on Groklaw is not intended to constitute legal advice. While Mark is a lawyer and he has asked other lawyers and law students to contribute articles, all of these articles are offered to help educate, not to provide specific legal advice. They are not your lawyers.

Here's Groklaw's comments policy.

What's New

STORIES
No new stories

COMMENTS last 48 hrs
No new comments

Sponsors

Hosting:

On servers donated to ibiblio by AMD.

Webmaster

A unification almost happened with Lotus v. Borland in 1996 | 392 comments | Create New Account

Comments belong to whoever posts them. Please notify us of inappropriate comments.

A unification almost happened with Lotus v. Borland in 1996

Authored by: pem on Saturday, June 02 2012 @ 05:26 PM EDT

Sure.

But which way would it have gone?

And which way would it go today?

From your perspective and my perspective and Judge Alsup's perspective, the
right answer is obvious.

But from some other peoples' perspectives, the right answer is obvious too --
albeit 180 degrees from what I consider to be the right answer.

The current supreme court gets some things right and some things very wrong. In
the realm of copyright, for example, I think they got Costco v. Omega very
wrong. That was another 4-4 split. They've given themselves a chance to get
this even more wrong in John Wiley & Sons Inc. v. Kirtsaeng. Unless they
start to show understanding of reasoning that actually supports the bargain that
is pretty self-evident in the constitution, frankly, I don't like the sorts of
odds we've been seeing from them.

In a perfect world, I would be sanguine they would make the correct decision.
In the world we have, I would be quite happy for them to decline to take the
case.

[ Reply to This | Parent | # ]

We live in an imperfect world - Authored by: jbb on Sunday, June 03 2012 @ 02:37 PM EDT

Groklaw © Copyright 2003-2013 Pamela Jones.
All trademarks and copyrights on this page are owned by their respective owners.
Comments are owned by the individual posters.

PJ's articles are licensed under a Creative Commons License. ( Details )