[pdpi]

> Is that really what you mean?

I'm fairly certain that's not what OP meant, no.

What OP is getting at is that the common law tradition isn't to explicitly spell out all the nuances of when that action is actually disallowed, but rather to set out the general principles, and let case law define the precise limits of that boundary. In contrast, the civil law tradition is very much based on statutory law explicitly setting the boundaries, and case law serving only to disambiguate.

The "aggressive and putative new use" they're referring to is basically taking common law's fuzzy boundaries and pushing a civil law interpretation on top where all the grey areas are assumed to be allowed.

[brian_cloutier]

That was a very clear explanation, thank you!