Remember that WildTangent is still on the books as good CAFC precedent holding the exact opposite of Alice.
There is no such thing as "good precedent" from a circuit court that contradicts Supreme Court precedent on the same issue. (Leaving aside the question of whether there really is a direct conflict between WildTangent and Alice given the procedural differences in the cases.)
Precedent is a social convention; there is no rule that judges have to follow precedent.
And the CAFC chooses which precedents it likes to follow however it likes. Supreme Court precedents have no special power over the CAFC. Just look at how Benson is treated by State Street Bank or Alappat.
Like all law, yes, case law is a social convention, but there most certainly is within US case law, quite specific rules requiring judges to file precedent and defining which precedent they must follow (binding precedent) and which they are not required to follow.
Comments
There is no such thing as "good precedent" from a circuit court that contradicts Supreme Court precedent on the same issue. (Leaving aside the question of whether there really is a direct conflict between WildTangent and Alice given the procedural differences in the cases.)
Precedent is a social convention; there is no rule that judges have to follow precedent.
And the CAFC chooses which precedents it likes to follow however it likes. Supreme Court precedents have no special power over the CAFC. Just look at how Benson is treated by State Street Bank or Alappat.
Like all law, yes, case law is a social convention, but there most certainly is within US case law, quite specific rules requiring judges to file precedent and defining which precedent they must follow (binding precedent) and which they are not required to follow.