Best opinion piece on open source and patents in a long time
Best opinion piece on open source and patents in a long time
Posted Nov 16, 2010 1:10 UTC (Tue) by wahern (subscriber, #37304)In reply to: Best opinion piece on open source and patents in a long time by linuxrocks123
Parent article: Red Hat's Secret Patent Deal and the Fate of JBoss Developers (Gigaom)
Of what I know of the German legal system, while precedent isn't binding generally it's certainly more persuasive than in other legal regimes. German decisions tend to cite to more cases and authorities than, say, French decisions.
If you go back to Roman times the role of precedent is totally orthogonal to both civil and common law systems (it's more a myth than fact that continental civil law is more "Roman" than English common law). In Roman times if you had the same facts, you were supposed to have the same outcome. Precedent was binding. You did have a body of jurist-made law. Cases were recorded, cataloged, and distributed. The difference is that Roman jurists, especially before the Justinian Code, but even after, refused to devise abstract rules beyond the facts of canonical cases. (They contrasted themselves with the other extreme of the Greeks.) The Justinian Code let to a revolt among jurists because of this. Civil law and common law diverged differently along these lines. Civil law dropped the binding precedence, but focused heavily on very abstract doctrines. Common law kept precedence (or rather re-emphasized that latent character) and applied legal abstractions more moderately, preferring to stay more strongly rooted to factual patterns.
Also, neither is directly descended from general Roman law or the Justinian Code. Derivation came by way of certain practices of the Catholic Church rooted in Roman legal philosophy (contrasted with the honor-based systems of medieval Europe), and from the academic _exegeses_ made of the recently discovered Justinian Code. The Justinian Code was itself an exegesis and _codification_ of the large body of "common" Roman law, and was politically a centralization if not usurpation of judicial power by the emperor in the waning days of the empire.
Google Books has some very interesting 19th century literature on the development of the Roman and European legal systems. Not much of the basic scholarship has changed. Just read it like Wikipedia; be a critical reader and compare and contrast bold assertions with other authorities.
Posted Nov 16, 2010 5:22 UTC (Tue)
by FlorianMueller (guest, #32048)
[Link] (2 responses)
The answer is very simple actually: decisions taken by the Bundesgerichtshof (Federal Court of Law, the highest court in matters of civil and criminal law, and patent law is part of civil law) do bind on the lower courts, particularly if they are so called "Leitsatzurteile" (guideline decisions) in which the BGH emphasizes a certain principle (or more than one -- such as in the XML generator case).
Posted Nov 25, 2010 2:30 UTC (Thu)
by linuxrocks123 (subscriber, #34648)
[Link] (1 responses)
---linuxrocks123
Posted Nov 26, 2010 22:19 UTC (Fri)
by linuxrocks123 (subscriber, #34648)
[Link]
(From Wikipedia)
So, yeah, it's precedent, but it's somewhere between advisory and binding, even on the lower courts.
---linuxrocks123
Best opinion piece on open source and patents in a long time
Best opinion piece on open source and patents in a long time
Best opinion piece on open source and patents in a long time
"Most civil law nations do not have the official doctrine of stare decisis and hence the rulings of the supreme court are usually not binding outside the immediate case in question. However, in practice, the precedent, or jurisprudence constante, expressed by those courts is often extremely strong."