RE: [dvd-discuss] Blizzard v Bnetd

[microlenz(at)earthlink.net]

On 9 Dec 2002 at 9:05, Richard Hartman wrote:

Subject:        	RE: [dvd-discuss] Blizzard v Bnetd
Date sent:      	Mon, 9 Dec 2002 09:05:46 -0800
From:           	"Richard Hartman" <hartman@onetouch.com>
To:             	<dvd-discuss@eon.law.harvard.edu>
Send reply to:  	dvd-discuss@eon.law.harvard.edu

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

Yes

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

Did Kaplan even consider this...No. WRT to Intellectual property we all know 
that the "H"s are out to rape pillage an plunder the sacred intellectual 
property of generation and that it is the legal profession to preserver this 
sacred flower.

> 
>  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
> 
>