Re: [dvd-discuss] Blizzard v Bnetd

[microlenz(at)earthlink.net]

On 8 Dec 2002 at 11:35, Bryan Taylor wrote:

Date sent:      	Sun, 8 Dec 2002 11:35:44 -0800 (PST)
From:           	Bryan Taylor <bryan_w_taylor@yahoo.com>
Subject:        	[dvd-discuss] Blizzard v Bnetd
To:             	dvd-discuss <dvd-discuss@eon.law.harvard.edu>
Send reply to:  	dvd-discuss@eon.law.harvard.edu

> 
> There is a case that is starting up in US District Court in Missourit called
> Blizzard v Bnetd that will challenge both the DMCA and the enforcability of "no
> reverse engineering" shrinkwrap contracts.
> 
> The EFF is taking the case, and here is their press release (from April)
> http://www.eff.org/IP/Emulation/Blizzard_v_bnetd/20020408_eff_bnetd_pr.html
> 
> The doc archive is here:
> http://www.eff.org/IP/Emulation/Blizzard_v_bnetd/

Check out the reply to the second complaint. I loved it- deny deny deny...DMCA 
is UNCONSTITUTIONAL ...COUNTERCLAIM

> 
> I'm wondering if there is any interest here in submitting an amicus brief. We
> did this once before on behalf of Openlaw in the DeCSS case.

Was that actually submitted? I don't think that it actually was even though 
some of the arguments did find their way into the pleadings. But, I do think 
that the submittal of amicus briefs from friends of the court is one area that 
does need work in the legal system. The USSC opened up the rules so that the 
courts could seek their own expert witnesses. Those are friends of the court 
even if they are not officers of the court and so should not be excluded.

WRT to an amicus brief, it should be restricted to "elucidating" the techical 
details so that the judge can understand them at best and at worst say "OK I 
didn't know a bit from a byte but these people do and after reading their 
explanations I know a lot more than that now"

> 
> __________________________________________________
> Do you Yahoo!?
> Yahoo! Mail Plus - Powerful. Affordable. Sign up now.
> http://mailplus.yahoo.com