An unanswered question is why are judges and juries swayed by testimony or opinion which goes contrary to the spirit of the law, unless the law is unjust. I mean in this case, it appears to have rested on how certain things in the analogue world always meant something but then when it goes on to the digital world it should take on different meaning.

Obviously this is sensitive and has controversy, but why is the topic now flagged? It's not party politics, or other really sensitive subject.