[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next][Date Index][Thread Index]
Re: [dvd-discuss] DVD CCA case - Bunner appeal / Supreme Court timing?
- To: dvd-discuss(at)eon.law.harvard.edu
- Subject: Re: [dvd-discuss] DVD CCA case - Bunner appeal / Supreme Court timing?
- From: microlenz(at)earthlink.net
- Date: Sun, 15 Jun 2003 14:01:56 -0700
- In-reply-to: <email@example.com>
- References: <20030606175648.C462@edinburgh.cisco.com>
- Reply-to: dvd-discuss(at)eon.law.harvard.edu
- Sender: owner-dvd-discuss(at)eon.law.harvard.edu
On 14 Jun 2003 at 20:37, Wendy Seltzer wrote:
Date sent: Sat, 14 Jun 2003 20:37:15 -0700
From: Wendy Seltzer <firstname.lastname@example.org>
Subject: Re: [dvd-discuss] DVD CCA case - Bunner appeal / Supreme Court
Send reply to: email@example.com
> At 17:56 +0100 6/6/03, Derek Fawcus wrote:
> >Just out of curiosity, what sort of timescale can be expected before
> >we hear back from the CA Supreme Court on this appeal?
> I think they give a decision within 90 days from the hearing (that
> would mean end of August).
> >Also, if the Supreme Court holds in Bunner's favour, does this make
> >the whole case moot, and hence we can expect it to be dismissed in
> >the lower court?
> Options I can think of: The Court could uphold the appeals court
> holding dismissing DVDCCA's claim on First Amendment grounds;
Best case. FA trumps Trade Secrets.
> could hold in Bunner's favor that the trial court used the wrong
> First Amendment or trade secret analysis, but remand to the trial
> court for a ruling under a corrected analysis;
One can only hope that the Justices note the bouncy bouncy nature of this case
in the court system. The Supreme Court's purpose not only to provide the final
ruling in the state court system but to also provide clear direction to the
lower courts. This seems to be one of those cases where the lower courts
haven't gotten it, are ignoring it, don't understand it, or don't have the will
to do it. I don't know which but I do not like my tax dollars frittered away in
>or it could do
> something less favorable to Bunner. A few weeks before the hearing,
> this Court dismissed Bunner's request to dismiss the case as moot on
> the grounds that DeCSS was no longer secret, had it ever been.
I'm probably wrong but I suspect the court did not want to make a precedent
that the time it takes to deal with the legal issues would make any trade
secret case moot. Nor does it want to address the issue that the DeCSS was
> Wendy Seltzer -- firstname.lastname@example.org || email@example.com
> Staff Attorney, Electronic Frontier Foundation
> Fellow, Berkman Center for Internet & Society at Harvard Law School