Re: [dvd-discuss] Re: The Grounds for Appeal

[microlenz(at)earthlink.net]

Yeah verily. I think you are right. NOt only are the judges quite 
ignorant of unix, open source but they already know Corley's 
motivation - "to rape pillage and plunder the sanctity of intellectual 
property as he corrupted the telephone system" If Corley had 
stated that his motivation was to encourage another player that 
might be a point but not enough of one to get anywhere.

Date sent:      	Mon, 3 Dec 2001 16:40:55 -0800 (PST)
From:           	Bryan Taylor <bryan_w_taylor@yahoo.com>
Subject:        	Re: [dvd-discuss] Re: The Grounds for Appeal
To:             	dvd-discuss@eon.law.harvard.edu
Send reply to:  	dvd-discuss@eon.law.harvard.edu

> 
> --- "Robert S. Thau" <rst@ai.mit.edu> wrote:
> 
> > If that's anywhere near the mark, then the key point that needs to
> > be hammered home would be an alternative view of the facts ---
> > perhaps beginning by pointing out that Johansen was trying not to
> > pirate any videos, but simply to build a DVD player, and that
> > testimony was not contradicted by anyone at trial...
> 
> I don't think the Court cares what Johansen's motivation was. They
> don't even really care what Corley's motiviation was, but to the
> extent that they do, it's a weak point in our case because he made
> some dumb comments in his article. Those comments were noted by the
> 2nd Circuit and I really think taking the argument in that direction
> is playing into the opposition's strength. One of the reasons Kaplan
> denied the 1201(f) exception was because Corley even admits he wasn't
> part of any attempt to build a DVD player.
> 
> I also think to whatever extent the case depended on that issue, it's
> over. The Supreme Court would, in my estimation, never be interested
> in reviewing it for that reason.
> 
> 
> __________________________________________________
> Do You Yahoo!?
> Buy the perfect holiday gifts at Yahoo! Shopping.
> http://shopping.yahoo.com