Hacker News new | past | comments | ask | show | jobs | submit
bluGill | on: Valve Responds to Developers Fearing AI Slop and Clones
> once the precedent is set

One case does not a precedent set. Sure one case is a precedent and whichever lawyer it helps will be sure the judge knows about it. However any opposing lawyer will find plenty of details that are "different" and thus the judge should ignore it.

In the US you need to go all the way to the supreme court to get a binding precedent. However the supreme court wants to see a lot of other judge's with lots of different things considered before they set a binding precedent. They are well aware that they don't want to get this wrong and so want to review the thinking of a lot of different judges in lots of different circumstances so they can get the precedent right.

the other way to get a binding precedent is if lots of different cases refer to it and all get the same result and so there is no controversy.

FLeXMurphy | parent
Of course there are variances and the legal teams will find everything they can. But we're not talking about hundreds. I wanted to keep it simple for the crowd here, and furthermore a judge can look through the legal bullshit which they often do. Think about for example the way that Alsup handles his cases compared to the way a "stereotypical judge" is portrayed.

As an aside, other posters keep saying how Valve can regardless finance or file or whatever a lawsuit. Yes. Anyone can. It doesn't mean they will win. Lawsuits happen all the time brought upon by people who are wasting their time and money.