Sometimes there are multiple cases which offer similar questions but different facts. If they pick one case that has a lot of complicating factors, where they might not even be able to get to the main question they want to answer because an "easier" solution comes up to get rid of the problem, that's an ineffective use of the court's time. Better to take the case that gets to the heart of the question and ensure that they can actually be effective.

I remember checking into the claim of a security change when the claim was first made. It was easily disproven by checking my Facebook E-mail notifications from 2007. Every message that had been identified as a private message was not on my wall, and every message that was on my wall had been identified as a wall post.

It should also be noted that Costco only loses this particular defense. The case now resumes back in the District Circuit, where Costco can raise other defenses to Omega's claims. Any of those other defenses could potentially save them, but of course the District Court's rulings on whether those defenses may be used can be appealed to the Ninth Circuit and potentially the Supreme Court again.

And once all of these preliminary matters have been heard, then the actual trial will begin, and whichever side loses can appeal the decision in the case up to the Circuit Court, and even the Supreme Court.

davidh