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

Re: [dvd-discuss] CA Supreme Court hears Pavlovich Jurisdiction Challenge in DVDCCA case

On 6 Sep 2002 at 14:33, Bryan Taylor wrote:

Date sent:      	Fri, 6 Sep 2002 14:33:44 -0700 (PDT)
From:           	Bryan Taylor <bryan_w_taylor@yahoo.com>
Subject:        	Re: [dvd-discuss] CA Supreme Court hears Pavlovich  
Jurisdiction Challenge in DVDCCA case
To:             	dvd-discuss@eon.law.harvard.edu
Send reply to:  	dvd-discuss@eon.law.harvard.edu

> --- "James S. Tyre" <jstyre@jstyre.com> wrote:
> > http://www.law.com/jsp/article.jsp?id=1030821170539
> > 
> > Rockets Fly Over DVD Encryption Case Jurisdiction
> > 
> > Shannon Lafferty
> > The Recorder
> > 09-06-2002
> > [...]
> > Gregory Coleman, DVD Copy Control's attorney, argued that Pavlovich knew what
> > he was doing harmed California's motion picture and technology industry --
> > thus meeting Calder's requirements.
> Coleman is conflating trade secret harm to the DVDCCA plaintiff with (asserted)
> Copyright harm to the MPAA members. Any Copyright harms that Pavlovich allegedly
> knew would occur prove only that Federal jurisdiction is appropriate, not
> California jurisdiction. This is a TRADE SECRET case, arising under state law. 

And I question if even that is the case. DVDs are sold everywhere. THere's lots 
of technical discussions of what they are and how they work, format etc. The 
CSS was not that well protected or difficult to RE. Just because somebody 
thinks something is a trade secret doesn't make it so. Jack Gassle wrote once 
of a consultant that was really secretive about his control algorithms. Gassle 
figured out he had rediscovered the phase lock loop. I've been dealing with 
someone who has created a large linear code that isn't as good as the one IBM 
developed in the 60s. It isn't an advancement or a trade secret since it's not 
that good.

> At best, the appropriate question is whether Pavlovich knew that the trade
> secret harms would impact California. Indeed it was impossible for him to know
> this, because it was not even TRUE at the time his web site posted DeCSS. The
> owner of CSS was based in Japan, not California, until a few weeks before the
> case was filed. Moreover, the DVDCCA is a very obscure business entity. Jack
> Valenti, head of the MPAA, testified under oath he did not know who the DVDCCA
> was, so it is extremely unreasonable to expect Pavlovich to know this. 

SO how did it harm any company in California? The DeCSS has not been used to 
"rip" any DVDs. It wasn't necessary. What are the damages as a result of 
proximate cause? ZIPPO. It's all speculative

As for JackBoots....the LA Weekly printed a picture of him sticking a finger up 
his nose in public...I think he's really senile...

> The supposed harms to THIS PLAINTIFF attributible to trade secret
> misappropriation and not copyright issues occured ONLY because the DVDCCA
> purchased CSS after the fact. At best, the "rocket" was fired at Japan, and
> imported to California by the DVDCCA after it landed there.

But CSS was licensed to DVDCCA and they are in CA. But there are NO copyright 
issues involved. What is completely missing here is HOW this trade secret was 
supposedly misappropriated. If the judges do not ask this question AND get an 
answer then they should go back to Freshman logic 101 

> __________________________________________________
> Do You Yahoo!?
> Yahoo! Finance - Get real-time stock quotes
> http://finance.yahoo.com