The unfortunate ruling of the majority Decision that no plagiarism was committed stems from its failure to distinguish between the determination of the objective, factual existence of plagiarism in the Vinuya decision and the determination of the liability that results from a finding of plagiarism. Specifically, it made “malicious intent”, which heretofore had not been relevant to a finding of plagiarism, an essential element.She then details the internationally recognized FORMS of plagiarism and identifies their objective existence in Vinuya and criticizes the Court for "against the overwhelming conventions on what constitutes plagiarism."
Plagiarism is thus akin to a crime like MANSLAUGHTER. You may not have intended to hit the pedestrian, but if you killed or maimed him or her, the death or injury is an objective and readily verifiable fact for which you are liable under the Law. The Supreme Court cannot be above this very logic. Worse it ought not to be introducing judicial innovations for the mere purpose of self-preservation that now aids and abets both plagiarists and copyright violators.