Newsgroups: alt.religion.scientology
From: dennis.l.erlich@support.com
Subject: Fair use and trade se
Message-ID: <9508061302.0IB8I00@support.com>
Organization: L.A. Valley College Public BBS (818)985-7150
X-Mailer: TBBS/PIMP v3.35
Distribution: world
Date: Sun, 06 Aug 95 13:02:06 -0700
Lines: 55


mgarde@ix.netcom.com (Maureen Garde)

>The federal district courts, which are trial courts, are bound to apply
>precedents established in the appropriate circuit court unless they
>decide for very good reason not to do so.  If a lower federal court
>does not follow precedents established in the appropriate circuit, the
>lower court risks reversal on appeal if the appropriate circuit court
>does not agree with the reasons given for not following prior
>precedent.  The ninth circuit is the appropriate circuit for the
>federal district courts in California.
>
>The federal district courts are not bound in the same way to follow the
>decisions of other federal district courts, although a decision in one
>federal district court, especially one within the same state, would
>ordinarily be highly persuasive to a judge in another federal district
>court.  So, the Vien case is precedent for the District Court judge in
>the Northern District of California court, but the precedent may be
>highly persuasive, but not binding precedent.
>
>In addition, with respect to the Vien case in particular, as has been
>said in other messages, perhaps in this same thread, the facts of the
>Vien case were different from the facts now presented in the
>Erlich/Netcom case, and thus it presents different legal issues.
>
>My guess is, given the time period that has passed since the hearing in
>the Erlich/Netcom case, that the judge is preparing a detailed written
>opinion.  The judge no doubt realizes that no matter how he rules on
>any of the issues, an appeal will be taken by one party or another.
>And the issues are very important ones as they have implications for
>liability of sysops and internet providers, not to mention the
>underlying first amendment issues.
>
>In addition, if Judge Whyte does decide to rule contrary to the Vien
>case on the trade secret or any other issue, it will be important that
>he justify that ruling in a written opinion as it would confuse the
>state of the law to have an extant written opinion ruling one way on
>the issues, and a a mere ruling (which would have virtually no value as
>precedent but would be binding on COS) which goes the other way.
>
>My guess is that Judge Whyte's law clerks are busy little bees at the
>moment.
 
    His "Outurns" (judicial name for working interns) seemed to 
    be getting quite a kick out of Cooley's theatrics at the 
    hearing.  Several of them chuckled in embarrassment at the 
    old dude during his gesticulating pontifications.
    
    Yea, I'll bet they are busy.
    
            +--------------------------------------+
           Rev. Dennis L Erlich  * * the inFormer * *
      dennis.l.erlich@support.com  +  inForm@primenet.com
                           "tar baby"