decoration decoration
Stories

GROKLAW
When you want to know more...
decoration
For layout only
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
Your contributions keep Groklaw going.
To donate to Groklaw 2.0:

Groklaw Gear

Click here to send an email to the editor of this weblog.


Contact PJ

Click here to email PJ. You won't find me on Facebook Donate Paypal


User Functions

Username:

Password:

Don't have an account yet? Sign up as a New User

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:
hosted by ibiblio

On servers donated to ibiblio by AMD.

Webmaster
GOOD QUESTION FOR GROKLAW. | 756 comments | Create New Account
Comments belong to whoever posts them. Please notify us of inappropriate comments.
GOOD QUESTION FOR GROKLAW.
Authored by: Wol on Friday, July 20 2012 @ 07:39 PM EDT
In the US, I think the standard procedure is "well, that doesn't apply in
this case", get a conflicting ruling, and if necessary punt it all the way
up the appeals system.

And if you're in a different circuit to the original case that makes it easier -
you can say "that case doesn't set a precedent here". Rather harder,
of course, if that case went to appeal in your own circuit.

But at any time you should be able to say "that case doesn't apply to this
set of facts", and if the original case got the facts wrong that should be
a fairly easy sell. Of course, showing that the original case got the facts
wrong might not be an easy task.

The best thing to do, if you can, is what that schoolteacher did with the
"pi = 3" legislation. As I read the story (on wikipedia?) he got
chatting with some of the congress-critturs or whatever they were and said
"you know your rule that pi = 3? Do you remember your old school maths?
Let's do ... - and presto pi now equals FOUR!". What's known in maths as
"proof by absurdity" or "if we assume it's true, we can then
prove it's false and vice versa".

Cheers,
Wol

[ Reply to This | Parent | # ]

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 )