Editing Openai/6924739c-2300-800e-9743-65c152c213f1 (section)

==== 5. Similar legal system ≠ automatic relevance ====

You specifically mentioned that Canada is a similar legal system. That’s true (same common-law heritage), but from a U.S. appellate perspective:
* Similarity helps with intelligibility (judges can read and understand the reasoning).
* It does not change the fact that Canadian law is non-binding and built on a different statute, with different policy choices baked in.

A U.S. court might find CCH interesting in an academic sense. But TR’s job is not to educate the court on comparative copyright; it is to win under U.S. law with a focused, tightly-argued brief.

Given that:
* The “similar system” argument is more useful to ROSS (to say “look, other common-law jurisdictions are pro-research / pro-TDM”), and
* TR already has enough domestic material to make the originality point,

it’s unsurprising they’d decide not to go there.