RE: [dvd-discuss] Re: Another Poster Child for DeCSS?

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

Ok ... I vaguely recall the term "barretry" ... but
what is "champtery"??


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

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



> -----Original Message-----
> From: John Galt [mailto:galt@inconnu.isu.edu]
> Sent: Monday, April 14, 2003 1:47 PM
> To: dvd-discuss@eon.law.harvard.edu
> Subject: Re: [dvd-discuss] Re: Another Poster Child for DeCSS?
> 
> 
> -----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-----
> Hash: SHA1
> 
> On Wed, 9 Apr 2003, John Zulauf wrote:
> 
> >
> >I spoke to one our company lawyers. What he said was "lawyers get to
> >lie" -- if they can find an *arguement* (valid or not) to 
> defend their
> >position, they can assert any rights they want.  The *purchaser* then
> >would have to show in court that the claims are invalid.  
> But, since it
> >takes a court to determine the validity of the claim, the lawyer can
> >state almost anything, because until the court rules, the law is just
> >"Schroedinger's cat" -- and any claim about it's quantum state is
> >equally valid.
> 
> Nothing in the above statement insulates them from a charge 
> of Barratry if
> they fail though.  In fact, I'd say that the proper defense 
> in this case
> is a good offense.  Given the fact that in the New York case, 
> the DVDCCA
> practically admitted Champtery, and the RIAA operates under a similar
> model, I'd say that the defendant that doesn't counterclaim 
> Barratry and
> Champtery in JohnZu's scenario is asking for infinite repeats 
> of the same
> case.  I'd go so far as to say that the RIAA is asking to be hit with
> Champtery counterclaims whenever they enter into a courthouse as a
> Plaintiff.  In fact, barratous behavior impleies Champtery, 
> as I submit
> that it's impossible to constantly both do and sue.
> 
> >My follow-up was what about areas that have been litigated.  
> The seller
> >can always claim that they *could* possibly win (overturning 
> precedent
> >is possible) and thus the shrink-wrap claims go back in the box with
> >Schroedinger's cat.
> >
> >.002
> >
> 
> - -- 
>          * You are not expected to understand this.
> - --comment from Unix system 6 source, credited to Lions and Johnson
> Who is John Galt?  galt@inconnu.isu.edu, that's who.
> 
> 
> -----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE-----
> Version: GnuPG v1.0.6 (GNU/Linux)
> Comment: Made with pgp4pine 1.76
> 
> iD8DBQE+mx4++ZSKG3nWr3ARAtzeAJ4nIwLRpnSRL9Y9FRPYcB1E7L6MkgCguDFv
> R/o59pU+iGkJPFFqQOv4Bqc=
> =+mvm
> -----END PGP SIGNATURE-----
> 
>