[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next][Date Index][Thread Index]
Re: [dvd-discuss]Lexmark Decision
- To: dvd-discuss(at)cyber.law.harvard.edu
- Subject: Re: [dvd-discuss]Lexmark Decision
- From: Sham Gardner <mail(at)risctaker.inka.de>
- Date: Mon, 17 Mar 2003 17:20:04 +0100
- In-reply-to: <OF56FBFE61.4EC5FCDF-ON88256CEC.0057C9EE@aero.org>; from Michael.A.Rolenz@aero.org on Mon, Mar 17, 2003 at 08:00:43AM -0800
- References: <OF56FBFE61.4EC5FCDF-ON88256CEC.0057C9EE@aero.org>
- Reply-to: dvd-discuss(at)cyber.law.harvard.edu
- Sender: owner-dvd-discuss(at)cyber.law.harvard.edu
- User-agent: Mutt/1.0i
On Mon, Mar 17, 2003 at 08:00:43AM -0800, Michael A Rolenz wrote:
> Lexmark not only chose to write a volumous reply (28pages) but send this
> court decision double in size to the LOC saying
> "THe courts have decided so the legislature should keep their hands
> off"... remember that the USSC said the opposite in Eldred.
Have I missed the final decision here? I thought the court had only issued a
preliminary injunction so far.
My (possibly somewhat old) version of acroread claims to be "unable to
decrypt" this file.
"There has to be a media outlet thats not run by corporations that build
a drum beat for war, corporations that profit from militarism and war,
but run by journalists and artists." (Lou Hill, Pacifica Radio founder)