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

[Ole Craig <olc(at)cs.umass.edu>]

On 09/09/02 at 08:28, 'twas brillig and Tom scrobe:
> On Sun, Sep 08, 2002 at 06:33:32PM -0700, D. C. Sessions wrote:
> > > so the DVDCCA has an unwinnable case, unless their lawyers are
> > > extremely stupid (or just greedy), they know it - and still they push
> > > on. why? might it be that as long as the case is undecided, an
> > > atmosphere of uncertainty keeps their monopoly alive?
> > 
> > No, silly!  It's because the studios have so much more money
> > than the defense that they figure they can bankrupt them
> > before the case reaches checkmate.
> 
> that falls in the "extremely stupid" category then, because they've
> already spent $4 mio in NY without that effect, and the Cal case has
> been going on for even longer.

	Without what effect, exactly? Forgive me for bringing up such
unwelcome things as unpalatable facts, but the MPAA *won* in NY. This
is an even more desireable outcome (from the MPAAssholes' point of
view) than bankrupting the other side -- they got a judgement to
stand. 

	Just because we all know that Kaplan was rather less critical
of the plaintiffs position than we feel he ought to have been -- and
that his decision is a pile of fecal matter that makes your average
pig farm smell sweet by comparison -- does not negate that point; we'd
best come to terms with it and figure out how to attack or negate it
rather than pretending it doesn't matter.

		Ole
--
Ole Craig * UNIX; postmaster, news, web; SGI martyr * CS Computing
Facility, UMass * <www.cs.umass.edu/~olc/pgppubkey.txt> for public key

perl -e 'print$i=pack(c5,(41*2),sqrt(7056),(unpack(c,H)-2),oct(115),10);'