Re: [dvd-discuss] Blizzard v Bnetd

[Bryan Taylor <bryan_w_taylor(at)yahoo.com>]

--- microlenz@earthlink.net wrote:

> Check out the reply to the second complaint. I loved it- deny deny
> deny...DMCA 
> is UNCONSTITUTIONAL ...COUNTERCLAIM

Yeah, it was kind of nice -- but the real meat is yet to come.

> > 
> > I'm wondering if there is any interest here in submitting an amicus brief.
> > We did this once before on behalf of Openlaw in the DeCSS case.
> 
> Was that actually submitted? I don't think that it actually was even though 
> some of the arguments did find their way into the pleadings. 

Yes. The one you are refering to would have been our second submission. Our
first went to the trial court. It's here:
http://cyber.law.harvard.edu/openlaw/DVD/filings/NY/0530-openlaw-amicus.html

> WRT to an amicus brief, it should be restricted to "elucidating" the techical

> details so that the judge can understand them at best and at worst say "OK I 
> didn't know a bit from a byte but these people do and after reading their 
> explanations I know a lot more than that now"

Right. There are any number of amicus briefs representing technical interests
that we can look at to model our tone and style. The one that we submitted
above seemed to get the balance pretty good. In our case, I would think we
would want to give the court an argument that impresses the consumer and open
source community aspects of the case.



__________________________________________________
Do you Yahoo!?
Yahoo! Mail Plus - Powerful. Affordable. Sign up now.
http://mailplus.yahoo.com