Tomorrow is D-Day at the 9th Circuit Court of Appeals that will have huge ramifications on the future of both music and information technology.
The original ruling that allowed peer-2-peer technology to exist is based on solid precedent. But that has never stopped courts from overturning rulings that go against their political and business interest biases.
The judge panel in this case consists of Boochever, Noonan and Thomas who have set aside a special 1:30 pm session in their calendar to hear arguments in this case alone after the usual slew of cases from the morning session.
This at least is a good sign that the court understands how important this case is.
How do the judges line up? Here is the little that we know:
Boochever is in his late-80's and was appointed by President Carter to the 9th Circuit in 1980. At the risk of sounding ageist, I am a bit concerned about an 80-something issuing vital decisions about new technologies.
That said however, one hopeful sign is that Boochever wrote the great decision in Hoffman v. Capital Cities/ABC which limited the nonsensical "right of publicity" when virtually everyone else was arguing that Dustin Hoffman should be paid boat loads of money because a magazine used his picture in a spoof without his permission.
Many people consider the "right of publicity" to be a form of intellectual property, so perhaps this is a hopeful clue. (Then again, maybe I am just clutching at straws in order to soothe my fears over how dumb courts can be sometimes.)
Next up - Noonan.
Noonan is in his late-70's and was appointed by Reagan to the bench back in 1985.
Harvard educated. Stints with the National Security Council and professorships at Notre Dame and Berkeley.
Wrote many books on Establishment Clause topics ("church vs. state" issues).
Wrote a book on federalism and state sovereign immunity where he criticizes the Supreme Court's current thinking on the issue. This includes apparently criticizing a Supreme Court decision that gave state governments immunity against claims of intellectual property infringement.
I didn't read the book, so hopefully his argument is centered on federalism that just happens to be incidentally related to copyright in that instance.
A critique of the book is here.
Also joined a decision that held that ideas with only limited range of expression are infringed only by virtually identical copies.
And finally - Thomas.
51-years-old. Appointed by Clinton in 1996. University of Montana Law School.
Not enough case background info at this time. Will advise.