The U.S. Supreme Court has bowed out of a long-running dispute over a DVD descrambling utility, dealing a preliminary defeat to Hollywood studios and electronics makers. Justice Sandra Day O'Connor placed a ruling by the California Supreme Court on hold last week, but rescinded her emergency stay on Friday.
O'Connor's decision came in response to court papers filed by lawyers for the defendant, Matthew Pavlovich, late Thursday. The effect is that Pavlovich is no longer barred from distributing the DeCSS descrambling utility by a court order, but he could be sued again if he decides to do so.
"The entertainment companies need to stop pretending that DeCSS is a secret," said Cindy Cohn, legal director for the Electronic Frontier Foundation, which is assisting Pavlovich. "Justice O'Connor correctly saw that there was no need for emergency relief to keep DeCSS a secret. It doesn't pass the giggle test."
An organization of movie studios and consumer electronics makers filed the lawsuit in 1999 against scores of people, including Pavlovich, who posted DeCSS. The DVD Copy Control Association's (DVDCCA) suit alleged violations of California's trade secret laws, and a state judge granted an injunction against the defendants.
But the California Supreme Court, in a split 4-3 decision last November, ruled that Pavlovich was a resident of Texas with no substantial contact with California who could not be sued in that state.
View: The full story
News source: c|net
O'Connor's decision came in response to court papers filed by lawyers for the defendant, Matthew Pavlovich, late Thursday. The effect is that Pavlovich is no longer barred from distributing the DeCSS descrambling utility by a court order, but he could be sued again if he decides to do so.
"The entertainment companies need to stop pretending that DeCSS is a secret," said Cindy Cohn, legal director for the Electronic Frontier Foundation, which is assisting Pavlovich. "Justice O'Connor correctly saw that there was no need for emergency relief to keep DeCSS a secret. It doesn't pass the giggle test."
An organization of movie studios and consumer electronics makers filed the lawsuit in 1999 against scores of people, including Pavlovich, who posted DeCSS. The DVD Copy Control Association's (DVDCCA) suit alleged violations of California's trade secret laws, and a state judge granted an injunction against the defendants.
But the California Supreme Court, in a split 4-3 decision last November, ruled that Pavlovich was a resident of Texas with no substantial contact with California who could not be sued in that state.
View: The full story News source: c|net
Kozinski wrote that the Ninth Circuit should have granted Kremen a victory in the case, based on his legal analysis of domain names and property law.
"Domain names, like corporate stock, are clear and discrete property rights. One who alters title to a registered domain name is fairly on notice that he may be affecting someone else's property," Kozinski wrote.
Kozinski also rejected the argument that domain registration records, which are kept in a computer database, should be treated differently from printed records.
The dispute between Kremen and Network Solutions stems from an unauthorized transfer of the Sex.com domain registration record from Kremen to a notorious con artist named Stephen Michael Cohen.
Kremen registered the domain in 1994, but Cohen gained control of it by forging a letter to Network Solutions instructing the company to transfer the site to him, according to court documents.
Kremen alleged that Network Solutions failed to inform him before transferring the site.
If the California Supreme Court does not take the Sex.com case, it's expected that the federal appeals court will render a final decision, said Kremen's attorney, James Wagstaffe.
Attorneys said it typically takes the California Supreme Court about three months to decide whether to hear a case. A ruling could take more than a year.
Meanwhile, Wagstaffe said he's encouraged by the latest turn of events, particularly the court's acknowledgement that domain names are a form of property.
"We're buoyed by this because this is a case where I represent David, who is fighting the Goliath of the Internet," Wagstaffe said. "Goliath is not dead, but I think he's wounded."
Commenting has either been disabled on this article or you are not logged in. Click here to login or register, its free!
Note: Anonymous commenting is disabled in order to keep the quality of responses to a high standard.