Re:Don't celebrate yet... (Score 2, Interesting)

About the movie studios:

here, the claim for relief involves the disclosure of a trade secret. A studio, while a licensee of CSS, probably isn't the real party in interest. Courts usually don't like when you use proxy plaintiffs to get around nagging problems of jurisdictional issues. This problem is solved easily enough, find another tort claim.

The majority toys with the tenuous logic of DVD CCA that because releasing CSS hurts the film industry, and a large majority of the film industry is centered in CA, Pavlovich expressly aimed at CA, and the harm was suffered there. (DVD CCA relies on Calder in the opinion, right?) That's a little difficult for me to swallow. Pavlovich wanted to develop CSS code so you could play DVDs on *nix. Maybe pavlovich was expressly aiming at Microsoft's Windows. He could argue that opening another playback device would have helped DVD sales, and his actions were harmful to microsoft. or sony.

I believe it's a toss-up w/r/t movie studios...