[118659] in Cypherpunks
Re: [Fwd: En Banc Review granted]
daemon@ATHENA.MIT.EDU (Bill Stewart)
Tue Oct 5 02:18:05 1999
Message-Id: <3.0.5.32.19991004225748.009d32b0@idiom.com>
Date: Mon, 04 Oct 1999 22:57:48 -0700
To: cypherpunks@algebra.com
From: Bill Stewart <bill.stewart@pobox.com>
In-Reply-To: <3.0.5.32.19991004152058.00adf100@flex.com>
Mime-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii"
Reply-To: Bill Stewart <bill.stewart@pobox.com>
At 03:20 PM 10/04/1999 -1000, Reese wrote:
>At 07:01 AM 10/4/99 GMT, phelix@vallnet.com wrote:
>>On 2 Oct 1999 06:19:21 -0500, pablos <pablos@fortnocs.com> wrote:
>>>We're losing big on Bernstein.
>>Show of hands: Who here is actually surprised by this?
>I'd say it is standard. Next step is put it to the supremes.
So far the history is
- Bernstein files in District Court, wins
- Feds appeal to Appellate Court, lose, Bernstein Wins
- Feds don't want to leave decision standing,
but are too chicken to go to the Supremes,
so they move to have the Appellate rehear en banc.
Bernstein might win or lose the next round.
If he loses, that's bad, because appealing that would be his move,
and the Supremes could refuse to hear it.
On the other hand, if he wins, it's a strong position,
though the Good Guys will have to expend a lot of resources to get that far.
The Administration's recent pseudo-liberalization of crypto laws
may strengthen Bernstein's case - they're allowing export of
binary applications, which are functional, while retaining
prior restraint for the source code - makes it harder to sustain
the bogus claim that source code is functional and that their
prior restraint is therefore Constitutionally acceptable.
(Not that they won't try to flim-flam the judges anyway...)
Thanks!
Bill
Bill Stewart, bill.stewart@pobox.com
PGP Fingerprint D454 E202 CBC8 40BF 3C85 B884 0ABE 4639
