Many will be familiar with the infamous thought experiment devised by the Austrian physicist and Nobel prize winner Erwin Schrödinger to illustrate the paradox of the Copenhagen interpretation of quantum mechanics. Schrödinger surmised that a cat (of a domestic feline variety) placed in a sealed box and exposed to a vile of poison triggered (or not triggered) by the random emission of a sub atomic particle could be both dead and alive at the same time.
Schrödinger’s CAT
Many will be familiar with the infamous thought experiment devised by the Austrian physicist and Nobel prize winner Erwin Schrödinger to illustrate the paradox of the Copenhagen interpretation of quantum mechanics. Schrödinger surmised that a cat (of a domestic feline variety) placed in a sealed box and exposed to a vile of poison triggered (or not triggered) by the random emission of a sub atomic particle could be both dead and alive at the same time.
Whilst such phenomena are believed to occur only in the quantum world occasionally opportunistic defendants will seek to run alternative defences to claims which exhibit similar characteristics to the concept of quantum superposition, i.e. two contradictory realities existing at the same time. The defendants’ “alternative defences”, recently articulated (but unsurprisingly not pleaded in detail), in the case of JJH Enterprises (Trading as ValueLicensing) v Microsoft Corporation & Others is an interesting example of this phenomenon.