Newsgroups: alt.religion.scientology
From: dennis.l.erlich@support.com
Subject: QUESTION ABOUT COPYRI
Message-ID: <9508271658.0NUAG01@support.com>
Organization: L.A. Valley College Public BBS (818)985-7150
X-Mailer: TBBS/PIMP v3.35
Distribution: world
Date: Sun, 27 Aug 95 16:58:15 -0700
Lines: 87


werdna@gate.net (Sheila Greenberg)

>"Justified And Ancient" Cochran) wrote:
> (1) MoFo (Dennis' case) is challenging most/all of the copyrights that
>     RTC claims CST owns for the OT stuff.
>
> (2) Arnie and the Post are being sued for copyright infringment.
>
> What happens to (2) if Judge Whyte rules that the copyrights are
> invalid?  (Yea, I know.  They'll appeal, but what happens if the
> appeals court rules the copyrights invalid?)

Sheila:
>When a dispositive issue is decided in a first court case, that finding
>may be likewise dispositive against parties in another case, without
>further litigation, based upon the concept of "issue preclusion."  Issue
>preclusion generally applies when
>
>1) the issue at stake in the later case is identical to the one in the
>prior litigation;
>
>2) the issue must have been actually litigated in the prior suit;
>
>3) the determination of the issue in the prior litigation must have been a
>critical and necessary part of the judgment in that action;
>
>4) the party against whom the earlier decision is asserted must have had a
>full and fair opportunity to litigate the issue in the earlier preceding.
>
>But don't get cocky, each of the above standards is subject, as are most
>legal "tests" to zillions of subtle exceptions and exclusions.  However,
>given that the same party is litigating in both of these cases, a final
>decision against the Church in one case will probably be held against it
>in a later litigation on that issue.  Interestingly enough, if the
>copyrights are held VALID in the first litigation, the new parties in
>subsequent litigations may be able to argue that they did not have an
>opportunity so to litigate in the first.
>
>N.B. The precise standard and rules for issue preclusion vary from
>jurisdiction to jurisdiction.

Keith:
> Can the case against Arnie and the Post even go forward before this
> question is resolved?

Sheila:
>If the court wants to do so.  While a court may often be willing to
>postpone a litigation pending the result of that in another, it is not
>usually obliged to do so.  The issue preclusion will be effective based
>upon which court resolves the question first.
>
>N.B.2: A decision that there is insufficient proof of invalidity (or
>validity) for temporary or preliminary injunction purposes will probably
>not be dispositive with respect to the same question for permanent
>injunction or damages purposes.  Has anybody actually looked at the
>federal registrations yet?  Did the church actually file the allegedly
>trade secret subject matter with the Copyright Office, or did they
>withhold it under the "rule of doubt."  If the latter, the Church would
>not be entitled to a presumption of validity and might have to prove
>validity for all purposes.
>--
>Sheila Greenberg
>Greenhill Productions

    Wonderfully informative post, Sheila.  Thank you and welcome.
    MoFo did a lot of work to undermine the scieno's claim to
    "presumption of validity".  Look at EFF's web site for the
    big filing they did before the June 23 hearing.  This early in
    the case, MoFo has presented veyr compelling arguments
    against such presumption.  If Whyte rules that it cannot be
    presumed, then other judges will take judicial notice of his
    doubts as to the validity of the scieno claims.

    Hopefully this will translate to a putting the brakes on
    the scieno's trend of kicking down critic's doors.

    You think?  Otherwise, I could visualize violence on the
    horizon.  
    
    And that's something I would *really* hate.

            +--------------------------------------+
           Rev. Dennis L Erlich  * * the inFormer * *
      dennis.l.erlich@support.com  +  inForm@primenet.com
                           "tar baby"