Kraft Canada c. Euro-Excellence: L’Insoutenable Légèreté Du Droit (Kraft Canada v. Euro-Excellence: the Unbearable Lightness of the Law)
Bibliographic record
Abstract
L’auteur, professeur de droit, partage ici son experience de plaideur dans la cause Kraft Canada c. Euro-Excellence, une cause qu’il a mene pendant cinq annees, de la premiere instance a la Cour supreme du Canada et qui restera sans aucun doute dans les annales de la propriete intellectuelle. Rares sont les opportunites pour un universitaire de descendre dans la salle des machines du droit, d’y observer le processus normatif. C’est donc un regard particulier qui nous est propose ici, l’auteur etant a la fois acteur et observateur. Une position unique qui lui permet de montrer l’imprevisibilite du proces, des tours improbables qu’il peut prendre, de ses aleas, du choix et du sort surprenant des arguments presentes par les parties. Ce que l’auteur appelle l’insoutenable legerete du droit. C’est finalement le mecanisme de notre systeme de justice qui est depose devant nous, un systeme qui, au fur et a mesure des procedures et des instances, elague ou valide certaines branches d’arguments. Ce commentaire, a l’allure de carnet de route, montre comment une cause est faconnee, et sur quels fondements elle finira donc par etre resolue. L’auteur nous explique d’ailleurs comment la theorie de l’abus de droit fera son chemin jusqu’en Cour supreme du Canada, preparant ainsi peut-etre le terrain pour la reconnaissance d’une theorie de l’abus de droit en droit d’auteur canadien. Si le commentaire devait avoir une suite, elle serait logiquement d’explorer la balistique du droit: la vie et la mort des arguments juridiques dans le processus normatif judiciaire et le role qu’y tiennent les avocats. A professor of law, the author provides an account of his experience in litigating a case over a five-year period, from trial to the Supreme Court of Canada. The case in question, Kraft Canada v. Euro-Excellence, will likely remain within the annals of intellectual property. Rare is the opportunity for an academic to observe law in the making. Being both actor and observer, the author provides a unique perspective. He shows the unpredictability of a trial, the improbable turns it may take, its hazards, as well as the choice and surprising fate of arguments presented by the parties. These features reflect what the author terms the unbearable lightness of the law. The mechanism of the Canadian judicial system, which progressively prunes or validates specific branches of argumentation, is thus laid out. Taking the form of a road map, the author’s commentary shows how a case is shaped, the foundations on which it is built, and how it is resolved. In particular, the author shows how the abuse of right theory became the central element of his argumentation before the Supreme Court of Canada, perhaps paving the way for the recognition of such constructions in Canadian intellectual property law. If a sequel to this commentary were to be written, it would be about the life and death of legal arguments, the inherent tension of the normative process in the adversarial system, and the role of lawyers in this process.
Fetched live from OpenAlex and de-inverted. Abstracts are not stored in this database: the inverted indexes are 8.6 GB of the frame’s 9.3 GB of text, and the host has 13 GB free.
How this classification was reachedexpand
Full frame distilled prediction
Teacher imitationNot calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. Learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and 10,348 direct Gemma labels. Candidate is the union of thresholded teacher heads; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels or direct frontier model labels.
Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.002 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.005 | 0.002 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.002 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.002 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
Machine scores (provisional)
The two teacher heads of the student model, read on this work. A score orders the frame for review; it never asserts a category, and the validation status ships verbatim with every row.
Baseline scores from an immature model (maturity gate not passed, 7 training rounds). Scores rank; they never assert a category.
score_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from itClassification
machine, unvalidatedMachine predicted; a candidate call from one teacher head, not a consensus.
How this classification was reached, model by model and score by score, is at the end of the page under "How this classification was reached".