[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: John Galt <galt(at)inconnu.isu.edu>
- Date: Mon, 14 Apr 2003 14:46:50 -0600 (MDT)
- In-reply-to: <3E944993.752864E5@ia.nsc.com>
- Mail-followup-to: firstname.lastname@example.org
- References: <3E9321E0.23449.36051C@localhost> <3E944993.752864E5@ia.nsc.com>
- Reply-to: dvd-discuss(at)cyber.law.harvard.edu
- Sender: owner-dvd-discuss(at)cyber.law.harvard.edu
-----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-----
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
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
* You are not expected to understand this.
- --comment from Unix system 6 source, credited to Lions and Johnson
Who is John Galt? email@example.com, that's who.
-----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE-----
Version: GnuPG v1.0.6 (GNU/Linux)
Comment: Made with pgp4pine 1.76
-----END PGP SIGNATURE-----