Re: RE: [dvd-discuss] Good AiboPet Hacker - DMCA story in SciAm

[<jerwin(at)gmu.edu>]

----- Original Message -----
From: Richard Hartman <hartman@onetouch.com>
Date: Thursday, January 24, 2002 12:22 pm
Subject: RE: [dvd-discuss] Good AiboPet Hacker - DMCA story in Sci Am

> 
> 
> > -----Original Message-----
> > From: Michael A Rolenz [mailto:Michael.A.Rolenz@aero.org]
> > Sent: Thursday, January 24, 2002 8:56 AM
> > To: dvd-discuss@eon.law.harvard.edu
> > Subject: Re: [dvd-discuss] Good AiboPet Hacker - DMCA story in 
> Sci Am
> > 
> > 
> > "The DMCA remains the law of the land and what AiboPet does 
> > breaks it. 
> > Sony
> >  retains its right to crack down on AiboPet and others like him, 
> but 
> > chooses not
> >  to exercise it, for now."
> > 
> > OK.....how does the doctrine of estoppel apply here?
> > 
> 
> You take the estoppel out of the bottle and take a few
> big swigs?
> 
> Perhaps you could give a brief description, for the 
> non-lawspeak-enabled what "the doctrine of estoppel"
> is? 
> 
From dictionary.law.com
estoppel
n. a bar or impediment (obstruction) which precludes a person from 
asserting a fact or a right or prevents one from denying a fact.
Such a hindrance is due to a person's actions, conduct, statements, 
admissions, failure to act or judgment against the person in an
identical legal case. Estoppel includes being barred by false 
representation or concealment (equitable estoppel), failure to take 
legal
action until the other party is prejudiced by the delay (estoppel by 
laches), and a court ruling against the party on the same matter in
a different case (collateral estoppel).