[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next][Date Index][Thread Index]
Re: [dvd-discuss] EFF: Security Researchers Drop Scientific Censo rship Case
- To: dvd-discuss(at)cyber.law.harvard.edu
- Subject: Re: [dvd-discuss] EFF: Security Researchers Drop Scientific Censo rship Case
- From: "Peter D. Junger" <junger(at)samsara.law.cwru.edu>
- Date: Fri, 08 Feb 2002 14:52:25 -0500
- In-reply-to: Your message of "Fri, 08 Feb 2002 10:21:03 GMT." <steve-1020208102103.A014136@steve.i2it.co.uk>
- Reply-to: dvd-discuss(at)cyber.law.harvard.edu
- Sender: owner-dvd-discuss(at)cyber.law.harvard.edu
"Steve Hosgood" writes:
: James S. Tyre wrote:
: > Nah, I got it, I knew you were having fun.
: Good! Meanwhile, back on the plot....
: > No, your first instinct is correct. Manufacturing a case where none exists
: > definitely is not kosher. Though you might enjoy one of my alternate sig
: > quotes.
: > [snip]
: > Lodi v. Lodi, 173 Cal.App.3d 628 (1985)
: Hmm. That sounds like a rather more extreme case of what I proposed. In
: "Tyre vs. Seltzer" (or whatever), there are two genuine parties. The only
: odd bit is that the EFF would be backing both of them, but the source of
: their finances is unlikely to be of interest to a court surely?
Since the first law of judging is that ``judges would rather play
golf,'' any law abiding judge is going to be very interested in
any evidence that the case is not a real case or controversy, because
then he can dismiss it and spend the rest of the day on the golf
(The first law of judging is primarily used to explain why judges
are so fond of the doctrine of stare decisis.)
Peter D. Junger--Case Western Reserve University Law School--Cleveland, OH
EMAIL: firstname.lastname@example.org URL: http://samsara.law.cwru.edu
NOTE: email@example.com no longer exists