[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next][Date Index][Thread Index]
Re: [dvd-discuss] Bunner wins DeCSS trade secret appeal
- To: dvd-discuss(at)cyber.law.harvard.edu
- Subject: Re: [dvd-discuss] Bunner wins DeCSS trade secret appeal
- From: Bryan Taylor <bryan_w_taylor(at)yahoo.com>
- Date: Thu, 1 Nov 2001 13:13:08 -0800 (PST)
- In-Reply-To: <4.3.2.7.2.20011101152803.02b655c0@seltzer.com>
- Reply-To: dvd-discuss(at)cyber.law.harvard.edu
- Sender: owner-dvd-discuss(at)cyber.law.harvard.edu
They quote Bartnicki v Vopper for the proposition that “[A] naked prohibition
against disclosures is fairly characterized as a regulation of pure speech.”
I new Bartnicki was a big gun for our side when it came out, and it's nice to
see it show up in a decision. How can it be a trade "secret" if it isn't pure
speech? That which is *disclosable* must be speech.
--- Wendy Seltzer <wendy@seltzer.com> wrote:
> The California appeals court has reversed the trade secret injunction
> against publication of DeCSS, concluding that DeCSS is "pure speech" that
> must not be subjected to the prior restraint of injunction before
> trial. Without any mention of Kaplan's decision, the court rejected
> DVDCCA's characterization of DeCSS as purely "functional."
>
> Good work, defense team!
>
> PDF Opinion: http://www.courtinfo.ca.gov/opinions/documents/H021153.PDF
__________________________________________________
Do You Yahoo!?
Make a great connection at Yahoo! Personals.
http://personals.yahoo.com