[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next][Date Index][Thread Index]
RE: [dvd-discuss] Re: Another Poster Child for DeCSS?
- To: <dvd-discuss(at)cyber.law.harvard.edu>
- Subject: RE: [dvd-discuss] Re: Another Poster Child for DeCSS?
- From: "Richard Hartman" <hartman(at)onetouch.com>
- Date: Mon, 14 Apr 2003 15:28:36 -0700
- Reply-to: dvd-discuss(at)cyber.law.harvard.edu
- Sender: owner-dvd-discuss(at)cyber.law.harvard.edu
- Thread-index: AcMCx1sQpA073FoZQF+gG0kf9M1wqQADb7Lg
- Thread-topic: [dvd-discuss] Re: Another Poster Child for DeCSS?
Ok ... I vaguely recall the term "barretry" ... but
what is "champtery"??
-Richard M. Hartman
186,000 mi/sec: not just a good idea, it's the LAW!
> -----Original Message-----
> From: John Galt [mailto:firstname.lastname@example.org]
> Sent: Monday, April 14, 2003 1:47 PM
> To: email@example.com
> 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
> >is possible) and thus the shrink-wrap claims go back in the box with
> >Schroedinger's cat.
> - --
> * You are not expected to understand this.
> - --comment from Unix system 6 source, credited to Lions and Johnson
> Who is John Galt? firstname.lastname@example.org, that's who.
> -----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE-----
> Version: GnuPG v1.0.6 (GNU/Linux)
> Comment: Made with pgp4pine 1.76
> -----END PGP SIGNATURE-----