[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: Sam TH <sam(at)uchicago.edu>
- Date: Fri, 2 Nov 2001 11:30:57 -0600
- In-Reply-To: <[email protected]>
- References: <[email protected]>
- Reply-To: dvd-discuss(at)cyber.law.harvard.edu
- Sender: owner-dvd-discuss(at)cyber.law.harvard.edu
- User-Agent: Mutt/1.3.23i
On Thu, Nov 01, 2001 at 03:38:57PM -0500, Wendy Seltzer wrote:
> PDF Opinion: http://www.courtinfo.ca.gov/opinions/documents/H021153.PDF
I noticed that the opinion involves pointing out a spelling error on
the part of the lower court. (It's of 'license'.) Is this normal
procedure for appellate opinions, or is this a suggestion of
disrespect to the lower court's opinion? Given the things they said
about the opinion, I'm inclined to believe the latter.
Could a real lawyer clear this up?
sam th --- [email protected] --- http://www.abisource.com/~sam/
OpenPGP Key: CABD33FC --- http://samth.dyndns.org/key
DeCSS: http://samth.dynds.org/decss
PGP signature