|
|
|
| Authored by: pem on Friday, June 01 2012 @ 09:43 PM EDT |
You simultaneously want the Supremes to look at it, but don't want the Supremes
to overturn it.
But, assuming the appeals court doesn't screw up and side with Oracle, there may
be no reason for the Supremes to grant certiorari UNLESS some of them want to
overturn the ruling.
Judge Alsup clearly showed the trajectory of the development of the law. There
are no real outliers between the districts that can't be explained by the
difference in time between 1980 and now, so there are no real current splits for
the Supremes to mediate.
If somebody does something as stupid as Oracle just did (again, unless the
appeals court sides with Oracle) I would actually be worried if the Supreme
Court granted certiorari. I would much prefer for them to summarily decide
there's nothing for them to decide.
As long as other judges have Alsup's ruling and the European Court ruling to
guide them, why does the Supreme Court need to get involved? It's not really
their job to make law, and Alsup pointed out very carefully that he's simply
following the law. If the appeals court agrees that Alsup did a good job, then
why on earth would the Supreme Court get involved? They have plenty of real
controversies with real splits to decide. Starting with, for example, if I go
into a store and come out with a shrinkwrapped software package, did I buy it or
license it?
[ Reply to This | Parent | # ]
|
|
|
|
|
