Peter Junger's export case just won in the Appeals Court! Yee-hah! >: > Junger v. Daley, 6th Cir. No. 98-4045 >: > http://pacer.ca6.uscourts.gov/cgi-bin/getopn.pl?OPINION=00a0117p.06 >: > http://pacer.ca6.uscourts.gov/opinions.pdf/00a0117p-06.pdf >: >"Having concluded that the First Amendment protects >: >computer source code, we reverse the district court >: >and remand this case for further consideration of >: >Junger's constitutional claims in light of the amended regulations." ... >: >>Because computer source code is an expressive means for the exchange of >: >>information and ideas about computer programming, we hold that it is >: >>protected by the First Amendment. To clarify what's going on, I wrote to Peter >: Am I correct in my understanding of the actions? >: - Peter Junger filed in Federal District Court for Northern Ohio >: - Court awarded summary judgement to the Bad Guys >: - Junger appealed to the 6th Circuit Appeals Court >: - The Appeals Court just decided the Constitutional issue of law, >: holding that source code is protected by the 1st, >: reversed the summary judgement, and >: remanded to the District Court And he replied >Right >: - The District Court now needs to hold the full hearing, >: but given the important finding, >: it should be a slam-dunk for Junger? > >The remand is partly to determine the effect of the new regulations. >The lawyers are going to have to decide what we will do next. I >am just a satisfied client. > >But just because the new regulations are such an improvement, the >really significant point is that we now have a circuit court decision >holding the computer programers are entitled to the same constitutional >protections that pornographers receive. > >: Or can Junger file to get a summary judgement in his favor? > >I suppose we could, don't know if we would. > >: - If the Feds still want to appeal, they've got to >: go to the Supreme Court? (Or win in another Circuit first >: and then try appealing to the Supremes?) > >Yes. But they may want to see what happens on remand before appealing. >(And, of course, it is theoretically possible that we would lose on >remand.) In that case the appeal would be back to the Sixth Circuit. Thanks! Bill Bill Stewart, [EMAIL PROTECTED] PGP Fingerprint D454 E202 CBC8 40BF 3C85 B884 0ABE 4639 Thanks! Bill Bill Stewart, [EMAIL PROTECTED] PGP Fingerprint D454 E202 CBC8 40BF 3C85 B884 0ABE 4639
