|
|
|
| Authored by: Anonymous on Tuesday, July 31 2012 @ 04:10 AM EDT |
But if they hadn't entered the motion in the first place, then the order would
not have affected them in the least; on obtaining the IBM-Samsung agreement,
they would have been able to publish it without having to jump through that
legal hoop first.
It's less like your analogy and more like...
Imagine that John Smith is driving a bus, and lives in a city where no bus may
travel at a speed greater than 50. In the same city lives Jane Doe. Jane Doe has
started a court application to have the speed limit on busses increased to 60;
on her way to the courtroom, driving an ordinary car and not a bus, she's
clocked going at 60 in a zone where the speed limit is 60. It would be rather
strange for Jane to be given a speeding fine under such circumstances, just
because she's calling for the speed limit on busses to be raised (and if she is
given such a fine, this discourages other people from asking for the limit on
busses to be raised).
--------------
Now, it is possible that there is actually a good reason for IBM to want to keep
that agreement private (trade secrets or whatever). If that is the case, though,
then the agreement should be kept private for those good reasons, and not
because Reuters asked for the documents not to be sealed.[ Reply to This | Parent | # ]
|
| |
| Authored by: Anonymous on Tuesday, July 31 2012 @ 07:20 AM EDT |
The protective order should only protect documents they
obtained by being a party to the case (and having some kind of
special access thanks to it).
Documents obtained through other means shouldn't be bound by
the protective order, particularly when they only intervened
to attempt to limit the scope of such protective orders.[ Reply to This | Parent | # ]
|
|
|
|
|
