[Leica] Is Eggleston in the right? What is the meaning of "limited edition"?

[abridge at mac.com (Adam Bridge)]

I read this article over on Digital Photography Review about William 
Eggleston's issuance of a large-format (44 x 60) ink-jet print set of a 
previous limited edition dye transfer print (11 x 17).

He was sued by a collector who claimed that the new prints reduced the value 
of his dye transfer prints which were "limited edition."

The judge found that Eggleston had created an "essentially different" work 
from the same transparency and so was within his rights.

I'm uncomfortable with this and I've wrestled in my own mind about what 
constitutes a "limited edition" in a digital world. I think we've talked 
about it here.

I have a Robert Bateman lithograph that was produced in limited edition. Now 
he sells the same print but as an inkjet print. My lithograph is worth 
(given the current market) an order of magnitude more than the inkjet print 
. . . but I have this strange feeling. If I owned the original oil that 
Bateman produced I wouldn't feel this way: he could only make one of these - 
at least not without a host of Chinese "starving" (perhaps literally) 
artists doing duplicates.

I understand that many of Ansel's prints weren't made directly by Ansel but 
by those under his supervision. But they were not mass produced. I have the 
feeling that for every print that made it out of the darkroom there were 
many "failures." Maybe I'm wrong. And I don't think Ansel claimed to do 
limited editions although I could be completely wrong on this.

But now, when we work entirely in digital, when any number of copies can be 
made at very small cost, does having a limited edition make any sense at 
all? Would you destroy an original RAW file (for example) to guarantee that 
you'd done a limited edition?

I'm left with a bad feeling. Maybe he wants a new M?

Anyway, am I off base here? What are your thoughts?