-----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE----- the question: ::I've seen two other reports (one from NBC) that say the ruling ::only covers the one federal district. ::Any lawyers want to clarify? The caveat: the following is a personal opinion and is not, in any way, to be considered either legal opinion or legal advice. Hire an attorney who specializes in these issues before you do anything rash which might qualify you for three hots and a cot. Basically, jurisdiction is all a question of who wants to honor whose decision until a higher level either affirms or rejects the lower court ruling (or sends it back w/o a full ruling but requiring a review of some part of the decision by the lower court). Generally speaking, the decision is valid for the Northern District of California, but a Federal district judge anywhere in the U.S. can make a concurring decision based on citing Judge Patel's decision that source code is protected under Amendment 1. In other words, the cite is valid anywhere, and can be used as the basis of a decision. Likewise, another district judge somewhere in the U.S. can issue a contrary ruling, still citing Judge Patel's ruling, but disagreeing with its tenants; or even ignore the decision and forge new ground. The basic rule of thumb is each federal judge is 'Judge Roy Bean, Law West of the Pecos' in his own courtroom, and able to virtually ignore even USSC rulings by claiming the action is not the same for some silly reason. He may be reversed on appeal... As for Judge Roy Bean, there have been a number who might qualify for the type in the Ninth Circuit who come to mind: Manny Real in LA, Hadder in LA, Foley in Vegas, and one in El Paso (whose name escapes me --maybe Peck), who was assassinated, probably by the drug trade, about 20 years ago. These are mavericks with a high percentage of cases reversed on appeal. Two of the four are of questionably diminished mental abilities, one was of questionable ethics, and one is just plain nuts --or at least off the wall (IMHO). I have not read the full Bernstein decision as yet, but I understand there are a fair number of unresolved issues such as binary objects. This again can spawn additional test cases, either by someone challenging the issue as Bernstein challenged the source code, which I consider was the correct decision as anyone can read source --understanding source code may be more difficult than reading a bad Russian translation of the nuances in Alice in Wonderland for some... (your mileage may vary...) Leaving government appeals out of the equation, if there are two or more district courts within an appeals circuit, whose fundamental opinion: 'source code is protected under Amendment 1 rights' do not agree, the obvious step is for the Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals, either by a 3 judge panel, or a full court review, to take jurisdiction and decide which of the two opinions suits their fancy. If a 3 judge panel does not give the decision expected, there is also a possible review by a full court on the motion of either party. Now, suppose the Ninth Circuit affirms Judge Patel. At that point every district court within the jurisdiction of the Ninth Circuit uses the Bernstein case as a given, an affirmed precedent; the rulings will reflect that unless some clever clown adds a twist and the judge falls for it. Again, setting aside appeals, there are multiple circuit appeal regions. None of these are bound by the Ninth Circuit decision, but it is a citation of importance. Now, if there are significantly different opinions in the appeal circuits, then the Supreme Court will decide whether they will accept the decisions for review, deciding which decision is valid; or the USSC can ignore it. Personally, I would publish anything regardless. I've had more than one go around with the simpletons. The first time the goons in gray trenchcoats shake you out of the rack in the early morning, there is a real adrenalin rush; after that it's: "Oh, shit, you guys again, who wants some coffee?" Whatever you do: keep your mouth shut; even teh previous thought is risky the assholes might charge you with attempted bribary of a Federal official. I have been quiet for 20 years; as you get older you get a lot more cranky, and less concerned with your welfare. You know: "strike another blow for Liberty, FUCK the CDA" and so on. Be a martyr; give your all for the cause. Eventually you end up in Springfield, Missouri, home for Federal Criminally Insane political victims. Larry Flynt (Hustler) managed to get away from the Feds who can hold an "insane" individual in their custody indefinitely: certifying him insane with one hand, while the other hand gives him a chemical lobotomy. Larry Flynt was sent to Springfield by a Federal Judge in LA for contempt of court --wearing an American flag as a diaper in his wheelchair (paraplegic). Unless you're a little crazy, I don't think I would start publishing source code yet. Oh, I expect it would be difficult for the Feds to get convictions with a strong precedent decision. But, keep in mind, federal judges are appointed on the basis of an ad in the local bar rag: 'wanted: middle aged person with failing law practice and good political connections.' A Federal judge is appointed for life; after age 65 they are able to choose cases which interest them; most of them seem to die on the bench (some would dispute they were ever alive on the bench). It's been said, "what do you call a lawyer with an IQ of 40?" "Your, Honour." If you wish to lay down the bait trail in the Northern California district, by all means, go ahead, but you might find yourself charged in a criminal action, and the government presenting a case that your charges are 'different' than the Bernstein case: Bernstein just wanted to publish an academic paper, you are charged with violation of the munitions act and maybe treason and espionage. And, always remember your opponent is a drug-crazed 800 lb gorilla with a mission: conviction. This case is the big one: Bernstein was the plaintiff, in a civil action. You will be the _defendant_, in a criminal action. I would not put a scenario like this past the DOJ scum; maybe multiple times to try and obtain results which match their corroded mental image of peace, prosperity, and union harmony. The DOJ is not interested in either justice or the Bill of Rights. Federal attorneys are striving for high conviction rates, like Vietnam body counts --and are enforcing the policies of the administration, not the courts, the constitution, or the people. If you managed to get here through the convoluted logic, I would be careful of how you loosen the floodgates. At this point we have made a statement which is a serious breach of their armor. We obviously need additional test cases to clarify the position, and the decision must ultimately be decided by the USSC. I would caution for another reason: if the Feds choose a preferred defendant who is flagrant, obnoxious, and on flaky ground; _they_ may have a good precedent, not us. Academic challenges are certainly among the best --a bit easier to make the point for education than for pornography. The next step IMHO, should be a challenge that object code is just a shipping container for the source code. == I'll get a life when it is proven and substantiated to be better than what I am currently experiencing. --attila -----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE----- Version: 2.6.3i Charset: latin1 Comment: Encrypted with 2.6.3i. Requires 2.6 or later. iQCVAwUBMrp6r704kQrCC2kFAQHx/gP6AoTCk7gEIjylULrXJcTS+QnOtV8Ic5s1 R0iPC0q3/67z9kROekOGOGkD1SRD8umnrO5rb7NRgJDBpdSzt1Hlp+FWZlH1HgZQ HmR0FZ6QUy1JKC9QJrw0oNTCaful/u4UHTAQLi4R8sTSx1RM/uWfR4Lw4kMKSQ11 Xa6hPWcvNZE= =Of3t -----END PGP SIGNATURE-----