This is a bit like selling pens, after copyrighting the chemical composition of the ink, and then insisting that anything an author writes with the pen belongs to the company.
How can this kind of reasoning survive a sane court of law?
How can this kind of reasoning survive a sane court of law?
With rare exception, law in the US is "More Fair" the more money you have. So yes, reading the body of law from that perspective should provide significant clarity as to why the ruling was done that way.
I've read enough history to know this isnt exclusive to the US, but rather the same in every country in human history.
Only religion, politics, and birth-right seem to have any pull similar to money.