[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next][Date Index][Thread Index]

Re: [dvd-discuss] Bunner wins DeCSS trade secret appeal



They quote Bartnicki v Vopper for the proposition that [A] naked prohibition
against disclosures is fairly characterized as a regulation of pure speech.

I new Bartnicki was a big gun for our side when it came out, and it's nice to
see it show up in a decision. How can it be a trade "secret" if it isn't pure
speech? That which is *disclosable* must be speech.

--- Wendy Seltzer <wendy@seltzer.com> wrote:
> The California appeals court has reversed the trade secret injunction 
> against publication of DeCSS, concluding that DeCSS is "pure speech" that 
> must not be subjected to the prior restraint of injunction before 
> trial.  Without any mention of Kaplan's decision, the court rejected 
> DVDCCA's characterization of DeCSS as purely "functional."
> 
> Good work, defense team!
> 
> PDF Opinion: http://www.courtinfo.ca.gov/opinions/documents/H021153.PDF


__________________________________________________
Do You Yahoo!?
Make a great connection at Yahoo! Personals.
http://personals.yahoo.com