[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next][Date Index][Thread Index]

Re: [dvd-discuss]Lexmark Decision

Sorry. You are right. The court decision dealt with the issuing of the preliminary injunction...which makes it even more bizarre a response to the LOC. Sayeth Lexmark "Librarian Of Congress. Thou hast no power over me for I have be declared preliminarily righteous by a Federal Court of Ken-tu-ky"

ANyone want to take a stab at rebuttal argumentation. The PDF file seems to be scanned in images rather than text (anyone OCR it?)

Sham Gardner <mail@risctaker.inka.de>
Sent by: owner-dvd-discuss@eon.law.harvard.edu

03/17/2003 08:20 AM
Please respond to dvd-discuss

        To:        dvd-discuss@eon.law.harvard.edu
        Subject:        Re: [dvd-discuss]Lexmark Decision

On Mon, Mar 17, 2003 at 08:00:43AM -0800, Michael A Rolenz wrote:
> Lexmark not only chose to write a volumous reply (28pages) but send this
> court decision double in size to the LOC saying
> "THe courts have decided so the legislature should keep their hands
> off"... remember that the USSC said the opposite in Eldred.

Have I missed the final decision here? I thought the court had only issued a
preliminary injunction so far.

> http://www.copyright.gov/1201/2003/reply/328a.pdf

My (possibly somewhat old) version of acroread claims to be "unable to
decrypt" this file.


"There has to be a media outlet thats not run by corporations that build
a drum beat for war, corporations that profit from militarism and war,
but run by journalists and artists." (Lou Hill, Pacifica Radio founder)