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

Re: [dvd-discuss] Matt Pavlovich WINS in Cal. Supreme Court

On 25 Nov 2002 at 16:24, James S. Tyre wrote:

Date sent:      	Mon, 25 Nov 2002 16:24:26 -0800
To:             	dvd-discuss@eon.law.harvard.edu
From:           	"James S. Tyre" <jstyre@jstyre.com>
Subject:        	Re: [dvd-discuss] Matt Pavlovich WINS in Cal. Supreme Court
Send reply to:  	dvd-discuss@eon.law.harvard.edu

> At 03:59 PM 11/25/2002 -0800, Michael A Rolenz wrote:
> >I understand the first part of their statement-that they were deciding on the
> >one issue only. I was referring to "face the music" ....I was surprised that
> >the court would interject slang into a highly formal document and what that
> >portends.
> This *is* California, Mike, slang is not uncommon.  Did not Alex Kozinski 
> of the Ninth Circuit recently conclude an Opinion with "The parties are 
> advised to chill"?  (Trust me, he did.)

I guess it just takes getting used to....(18 yrs here and Prof. L.C.Mills 
freshman english still is drilled)

> And "face the music" does not necessarily mean that he's liable, just that he'd
> have to (possibly) defend the suit on the merits in another forum, instead of
> avoiding that due to personal jurisdiction concerns.

True...he could have said "where they line him up against the wall and POP goes 
the weasel" - Groucho Marx from "Duck Soup"

> >Reading the dissent I'm afraid you are right about it "may - or may not -
> >foreshadow what the same court's decision will be when it decides the _Bunner_
> >portion of the case"...the phrases "improper reverse engineering" and"trade
> >secret" popped quite frequently.
> Do keep in mind, though, that those issues were not litigated here, and the
> court was bound to accept as true certain allegations made in the Complaint. 
> That won't be the case when they get to the Bunner hearing.  It is an open
> question whether there would be a predisposition to say the same things when the
> issues are litigated in the Cal. Supreme Court.

Yes I can see that.... the decision dealt with issues in a rational manner. The 
dissent dealt with allegations less so. The whole "CSS prevents piracy" 
argument is so ludicrous that it still baffles me that any one takes it 
seriously But then the people that did CSS are amateurs and they do get their 
day in court....if ever there was a reason for the courts to appoint amicus 
experts..these cases are them.

(OT-Anyone know anything about Kasumi the scheme used in 3gpp?
 Looks to be an 8 round Feistel cipher along the lines of DES. 128 bit key 
doesn't seem much more secure than triple DES. What am I missing? <other than a 
complete cryptanalysis>. That may be the next big problem if it is flawed as 
CSS was)

> --------------------------------------------------------------------
> 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