[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next][Date Index][Thread Index]
Re: [dvd-discuss] DeCSS - the saga continues
- To: dvd-discuss(at)lweb.law.harvard.edu
- Subject: Re: [dvd-discuss] DeCSS - the saga continues
- From: Tom <tom(at)lemuria.org>
- Date: Wed, 12 Dec 2001 08:01:47 +0100
- In-reply-to: <4.3.2.7.2.20011211183206.00b1bab0@earthlink.net>; from jstyre@jstyre.com on Tue, Dec 11, 2001 at 06:39:41PM -0800
- References: <4.3.2.7.2.20011211183206.00b1bab0@earthlink.net>
- Reply-to: dvd-discuss(at)cyber.law.harvard.edu
- Sender: owner-dvd-discuss(at)cyber.law.harvard.edu
- User-agent: Mutt/1.2.5i
On Tue, Dec 11, 2001 at 06:39:41PM -0800, James S. Tyre wrote:
> 2. Whether the issuance of a preliminary injunction to
> stop the dissemination on the Internet of a computer program that
> knowingly contains stolen trade secrets violates the First Amendment."
which they still have to prove. I for one, wasn't aware of either Jon
nor the "trade secret" status before they hit me with their laughable
injunction attempt.
plus - shouldn't the court be able to throw out a requested injunction
if the relief thought is entirely inefficient? such as getting a TRO in
a california court against 500+ people worldwide? no matter how large
the notions of grandieur, the court should realize that its ruling will
never be enforced in even a majority of the countries involved.
--
http://web.lemuria.org/pubkey.html
pub 1024D/D88D35A6 2001-11-14 Tom Vogt <tom@lemuria.org>
Key fingerprint = 276B B7BB E4D8 FCCE DB8F F965 310B 811A D88D 35A6