RE: [dvd-discuss] Blizzard v Bnetd

["Richard Hartman" <hartman(at)onetouch.com>]

I assume the "H" word is "Hacker".

Q: does "Hacker" have a definition under the law?  That is,
it is an acknowledged legal term?


	If yes: does the plaintiff's use of the term match
	  the legal definition?  Could this be a "matter of 
	  fact" to be determined by the court, that the
	  defendants are, indeed, "Hackers" and if not that
	  the plaintiffs must refrain from using the term?

	If no: the court would, of course, have to have a
	  definition for any undefined term used in legal
	  arguments and pleadings.  Let 'em put into exact
	  terms what they consider a "Hacker" to be, then
	  they have to prove that the defendants match that
        term before they can use it.  At worst, they may
	  only used "alleged Hacker" until proven otherwise.


-- 
-Richard M. Hartman
hartman@onetouch.com

186,000 mi/sec: not just a good idea, it's the LAW!



> -----Original Message-----
> From: microlenz@earthlink.net [mailto:microlenz@earthlink.net]
> Sent: Sunday, December 08, 2002 7:48 PM
> To: dvd-discuss@eon.law.harvard.edu
> Subject: Re: [dvd-discuss] Blizzard v Bnetd
> 
> 
> On 8 Dec 2002 at 18:30, Bryan Taylor wrote:
> 
> Date sent:      	Sun, 8 Dec 2002 18:30:26 -0800 (PST)
> From:           	Bryan Taylor <bryan_w_taylor@yahoo.com>
> Subject:        	Re: [dvd-discuss] Blizzard v Bnetd
> To:             	dvd-discuss@eon.law.harvard.edu
> Send reply to:  	dvd-discuss@eon.law.harvard.edu
> 
> > 
> > --- microlenz@earthlink.net wrote:
> > 
> > > Check out the reply to the second complaint. I loved it- deny deny
> > > deny...DMCA 
> > > is UNCONSTITUTIONAL ...COUNTERCLAIM
> > 
> > Yeah, it was kind of nice -- but the real meat is yet to come.
> > 
> > > > 
> > > > 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. 
> > 
> > Yes. The one you are refering to would have been our second 
> submission. Our
> > first went to the trial court. It's here:
> > 
http://cyber.law.harvard.edu/openlaw/DVD/filings/NY/0530-openlaw-amicus.html

Guess I forgot that...well memory is the second or is it the third thing to go 
over time...

> 
> > 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"
> 
> Right. There are any number of amicus briefs representing technical interests
> that we can look at to model our tone and style. The one that we submitted above
> seemed to get the balance pretty good. In our case, I would think we would want
> to give the court an argument that impresses the consumer and open source
> community aspects of the case.
> 
> 

It may be even more critical in Blizzard. The Blizzard is likely to try a 
technical snowjob with the "H" word and "infringer" thrown around 
liberally.Expaining what's going on so that the Judge can see that the "H"word 
is being used  to manipulate should have some leverage. 

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