[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next][Date Index][Thread Index]
RE: [dvd-discuss] Judge Tosses Tech Copyright Law Challenge
- To: <dvd-discuss(at)cyber.law.harvard.edu>
- Subject: RE: [dvd-discuss] Judge Tosses Tech Copyright Law Challenge
- From: "Dean Sanchez" <DSANCHEZ(at)fcci-group.com>
- Date: Thu, 10 Apr 2003 13:08:51 -0400
- Reply-to: dvd-discuss(at)cyber.law.harvard.edu
- Sender: owner-dvd-discuss(at)cyber.law.harvard.edu
- Thread-index: AcL/eEJnpub4K2TaQqCdU3z5G16MUQACIDxg
- Thread-topic: [dvd-discuss] Judge Tosses Tech Copyright Law Challenge
So, you don't have standing unless you're actually sued. In other words, you won't have to mortgage your house to pay your legal bills as long as you don't upset us. This is just legal extortion. Compare this with - "Your building won't burn down as long as you buy your concrete from us" speech that a thug might make.
This just reinforces the idea that companies can threaten lawsuits, but never have to follow through. Talk about stifling research or discussion; unless you have deep pockets ( or nothing to lose) or a group that does have the resources to support you, who can afford to risk drawn-out litigation?
Isn't this barratry? Is barratry no longer an illegal action?
From: Lars Gaarden [mailto:firstname.lastname@example.org]
Sent: Thursday, April 10, 2003 11:44 AM
Subject: Re: [dvd-discuss] Judge Tosses Tech Copyright Law Challenge
Michael A Rolenz wrote:
> "invasive and destructive trespass" what a pompass ass.
Trespass to a published "trade secret", no less.
To be fair, the judge ruled on standing and not on merits - but that
comment sure made me angry too.