[tbcj]

I don’t think the original point being made was that NYT wasn’t justified in bringing the action. The point that was being made was the suit would be ultimately meaningless in the long term even if it was successful in the short term. There is a potentially more significant risk in the future that this suit will not protect against because of the reasons enumerated by the author. While the author is speculating, the law struggles with technology and adapting to change, which makes their prediction useful because it does highlight the problems that are coming that can’t be readily mitigated through legal precedent.

[paulddraper]

Correct, a_wild_dandan argues that the outcome of this suit makes no pragmatic difference.