[Seth-Trips] Pavlovich jurisdictional appellate arguments in _DVD CCA v. McLaughlin et al._ ([dave@farber.net: IP: Tech-Savvy Indiana Student Snared in California Court])

[Seth David Schoen]

I'm thinking of going to this.  The argument got all the way to the
California Supreme Court which has sent it back for arguments at 
the appellate court level.  Those arguments are tomorrow.

The subject should really be "Tech-Savvy Indiana Student _May Be_
Snared in California Court".

----- Forwarded message from David Farber <dave at farber.net> -----

Date: Wed, 11 Jul 2001 05:27:37 -0400
To: ip-sub-1 at majordomo.pobox.com
From: David Farber <dave at farber.net>
Subject: IP: Tech-Savvy Indiana Student Snared in California Court

>Electronic Frontier Foundation Media Advisory
>
>For Immediate Release: July 11, 2001
>
>Contact:
>
>Allonn Levy, Attorney, HS Law Group, +1 408 295-7034 x384,
>   ael at hsapc.com
>
>Robin Gross, Attorney, Electronic Frontier Foundation,
>   +1 415 436-9333 x112, robin at eff.org
>
>
>Tech-Savvy Indiana Student Snared in California Court
>
>Court Reconsiders Due Process for Alleged Software Publisher
>
>
>Debate over whether Indiana student Matthew Pavlovich
>must appear in a DVD software publication case will continue
>tomorrow, July 12, in a California court. In December 2000,
>a unanimous California Supreme Court ruled that the
>appellate court must reconsider its decision requiring
>Pavlovich to defend himself in a California court.
>
>[...]
>
>The movie industry, represented by its trade group DVD-CCA,
>filed the lawsuit in California alleging trade secret
>misappropriation.  The suit attempts to force Pavlovich and
>500 anonymous posters located all over the world to defend
>their Internet publication of the software in California.
>
>Trial and appellate courts both denied Pavlovich's
>motion for dismissal, but in a rare move last December,
>the California Supreme Court unanimously granted
>Pavlovich's petition for review and sent the matter back to
>the appellate court for argument on why the non-California
>resident with no connection to the state should remain in
>the case.
>
>[...]
>
>At a January 2000 hearing, Santa Clara County Superior Court
>Judge William Elfving ordered defendants to remove postings
>of DeCSS pending the case's outcome at trial. The 6th
>Appellate Circuit court will hear EFF's appeal of Elfving's
>ruling this fall.
>
>The appeals court has stayed the alleged trade secret
>misappropriation case pending the outcome of Pavlovich's
>jurisdictional motion.
>
>The California 6th Appellate Court will hear arguments
>on the case on Thursday, July 12th at 9:30 a.m. at
>333 W. Santa Clara St., 10th floor, in San Jose,
>California.  For directions see
>http://www.courtinfo.ca.gov/courts/courtsofappeal/6thDistrict/
>
>See Pavlovich's appellate motion to dismiss for lack of
>jurisdiction:
>http://www.eff.org/sc/dvdcca/20000921_pavlovich_appeal.html
>
>See DVD-CCA's opposition to original request for dismissal:
>http://www.eff.org/sc/dvdcca/20000825_dvdcca_opp.html
>
>EFF's Archive on California DeCSS case:
>http://www.eff.org/pub/Intellectual_property/DVDCCA_case/
>
>Cryptome.org Archive with more legal filings:
>http://cryptome.org/cryptout.htm#DVD-DeCSS
>
>[...]

For archives see: http://www.interesting-people.org/

----- End forwarded message -----

-- 
Seth David Schoen <schoen at loyalty.org>  | And do not say, I will study when I
Temp.  http://www.loyalty.org/~schoen/  | have leisure; for perhaps you will
down:  http://www.loyalty.org/   (CAF)  | not have leisure.  -- Pirke Avot 2:5