Re: [dvd-discuss] DeCSS - the saga continues

[microlenz(at)earthlink.net]

"This trade secret case with national implications addresses the
fundamental question of whether the owner of an acknowledged 
trade secret can obtain a preliminary injunction to prevent 
individuals from destroying the trade secret through widespread'
disclosure."

I missed that on my first read. The DVDCCA is pretty ignorant...OK
just downright stupid...if they don't realize that there is a 
SYMBOLIC aspect to the FIRST Amendment. It's NUMBER ONE. 
It's the FIRST, UTMOST FORMOST...It's also the one that 
EVERYBODY understands and EVERYBODY supports. Many 
people are not supportive of a stupid lazy incompetent
person who then claims that somebody can't talk about them.

> In DVD Copy Control Ass'n v. Bunner, the CA state court trade
> secrets case, DVDCCA now has filed its Petition for Review in the CA
> Supreme Court, seeking to overturn the Court of Appeal's decision
> reversing the trial court's preliminary injunction, on the ground
> that the injunction was a prior restraint of speech.  Not
> surprisingly, DVDCCA makes much of the Second Circuit's recent
> decision affirming the trial court in Universal v. Reimerdes, the
> 2600 case.  Interesting read.
> 
> http://www.eff.org/ip/Video/DVDCCA_case/20011204_petition_for_review
> .p df
> 
> ...
> 
> "This trade secret case with national implications addresses the
> fundamental question of whether the owner of an acknowledged trade
> secret can obtain a preliminary injunction to prevent individuals
> from destroying the trade secret through widespread' disclosure. In
> the face of well-established law permitting injunctions to protect
> intellectual property, the Court of Appeal reversed the preliminary
> injunction granted by the Superior Court because it held that the
> First Amendment' s prior restraint doctrine prohibits the use of an
> injunction to prohibit expression. Because any trade secret can be
> communicated by expression, the Court of Appeal' s decision
> improperly eviscerates the only effective remedy historically
> available to protect a trade secret that has been stolen. The result
> is not only inequitable, it is also inconsistent with California' s
> economic welfare and two centuries of precedent under which
> injunctions protecting misappropriated intellectual property from
> further dissemination have peacefully co-existed with First
> Amendment principles. The Court of Appeal' s decision applies the
> First Amendment in a blunderbuss manner wholly inconsistent with
> governing authority and the decisions of numerous courts. II. ISSUES
> PRESENTED FOR REVIEW 1. Whether the injunctive relief provisions of
> the California Uniform Trade Secrets Act (Civ. Code $ 3426, et seq.
> (1984)) (the "California UTSA"), are unconstitutional as applied to
> the facts of this case. 2. Whether the issuance of a preliminary
> injunction to stop the dissemination on the Internet of a computer
> program that knowingly contains stolen trade secrets violates the
> First Amendment."
> 
> ....
> 
> 
> --------------------------------------------------------------------
> James S. Tyre                               mailto:jstyre@jstyre.com
> Law Offices of James S. Tyre          310-839-4114/310-839-4602(fax)
> 10736 Jefferson Blvd., #512               Culver City, CA 90230-4969
> Co-founder, The Censorware Project             http://censorware.net
> 


------- End of forwarded message -------