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

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

To: dvd-discuss(at)cyber.law.harvard.edu
Subject: Re: [dvd-discuss] Bunner wins DeCSS trade secret appeal
From: Sam TH <sam(at)uchicago.edu>
Date: Fri, 2 Nov 2001 11:30:57 -0600
In-Reply-To: <4.3.2.7.2.20011101152803.02b655c0@seltzer.com>
References: <4.3.2.7.2.20011101152803.02b655c0@seltzer.com>
Reply-To: dvd-discuss(at)cyber.law.harvard.edu
Sender: owner-dvd-discuss(at)cyber.law.harvard.edu
User-Agent: Mutt/1.3.23i

On Thu, Nov 01, 2001 at 03:38:57PM -0500, Wendy Seltzer wrote:
> PDF Opinion: http://www.courtinfo.ca.gov/opinions/documents/H021153.PDF

I noticed that the opinion involves pointing out a spelling error on
the part of the lower court.  (It's of 'license'.)  Is this normal
procedure for appellate opinions, or is this a suggestion of
disrespect to the lower court's opinion?  Given the things they said
about the opinion, I'm inclined to believe the latter.

Could a real lawyer clear this up?
           
sam th --- sam@uchicago.edu --- http://www.abisource.com/~sam/
OpenPGP Key: CABD33FC --- http://samth.dyndns.org/key
DeCSS: http://samth.dynds.org/decss

PGP signature

Follow-Ups:
- Re: [dvd-discuss] Bunner wins DeCSS trade secret appeal
  - From: Bryan Taylor <bryan_w_taylor@yahoo.com>

References:
- [dvd-discuss] Bunner wins DeCSS trade secret appeal
  - From: Wendy Seltzer <wendy@seltzer.com>

Prev by Date: Re: [dvd-discuss] Interesting 1st sale-shrinkwrap-EULA-(c) infringementcase
Next by Date: RE: [dvd-discuss] Re: [DMCA_discuss] Linux kernel security fixes censored by the DMCA
Previous by thread: Re: [dvd-discuss] Bunner wins DeCSS trade secret appeal
Next by thread: Re: [dvd-discuss] Bunner wins DeCSS trade secret appeal
Index(es):
- Date
- Thread