Bernstein v. United States Dep't Of Just., 192 F.3d 1308 (9th Cir. 1999). · Go Syfert
Search
Bernstein v. United States Dep't Of Just., 192 F.3d 1308 (9th Cir. 1999). Cases Citing This Book View Copy Cite
5 citation events (2 in the last 25 years) across 4 distinct courts.
Strongest positive: Universal City Studios, Inc. v. Corley (ca2, 2001-11-28)
Top citers, strongest first. 2 distinct citers. How cited ↗
discussed Cited "see, e.g." Universal City Studios, Inc. v. Corley
2d Cir. · 2001 · signal: see also · confidence low
Brief of Amici Curiae Dr. Harold Abelson et al. at 17; Brief of Amici Curiae Steven Bellovin et al. at 12-13; see also Bernstein v. United States Department of Justice, 176 F.3d 1132, 1141 (9th Cir.) (concluding that computer source code is speech because it is "the preferred means" of communication among computer programmers and cryptographers), reh'g in banc granted and opinion withdrawn, 192 F.3d 1308 (9th Cir.1999). 22 .Reinforcing the conclusion that software programs qualify as "speech” for First Amendment purposes — even though they instruct computers — is the accelerated blurring…
discussed Cited "see, e.g." Universal City Studios, Inc. v. Reimerdes
S.D.N.Y. · 2000 · signal: compare · confidence low
Compare Bernstein v. United States Dept. of Justice, 176 F.3d 1132, 1141 (holding that encryption software in source code form is constitutionally protected expression but expressing no opinion with respect to object code), rehearing in banc granted, opinion withdrawn, 192 F.3d 1308 (9th Cir.1999); with Junger v. Daley, 8 F.Supp.2d 708, 715-18 (N.D.Ohio 1998) (holding that encryption software in source code form is functional rather than expressive and therefore not protected speech); Karn v. United States Dept. of State, 925 F.Supp. 1 , 9 n. 19 (D.D.C.1996) (assuming that source code is prote…
Retrieving the full opinion text from the archive…
Daniel J. Bernstein
v.
United States Department of Justice United States Department of Commerce Department of State United States Department of Defense United States Arms Control and Disarmament Agency National Security Agency United States Department of Energy Central Intelligence Agency Madeline E. Albright, United States Secretary of State William M. Daley, United States Secretary of Commerce William Cohen, United States Secretary of Defense Kenneth A. Minihan, Director, United States National Security Agency John B. Holum, Director, United States Arms Control and Disarmament Agency William G. Robinson Gary M. Oncale Ambassador Michael Newlin Charles Ray Mark Koro Greg Stark
97-16686.
Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit.
Sep 30, 1999.
192 F.3d 1308
Cited by 1 opinion  |  Published

192 F.3d 1308 (9th Cir. 1999)

DANIEL J. BERNSTEIN, Plaintiff-Appellee,
v.
UNITED STATES DEPARTMENT OF JUSTICE; UNITED STATES DEPARTMENT OF COMMERCE; DEPARTMENT OF STATE; UNITED STATES DEPARTMENT OF DEFENSE; UNITED STATES ARMS CONTROL AND DISARMAMENT AGENCY; NATIONAL SECURITY AGENCY; UNITED STATES DEPARTMENT OF
ENERGY; CENTRAL INTELLIGENCE AGENCY; MADELINE E. ALBRIGHT, United States Secretary of State; WILLIAM M. DALEY, United States Secretary of Commerce; WILLIAM COHEN, United States Secretary of Defense; KENNETH A. MINIHAN, Director, United States National Security Agency; JOHN B. HOLUM, Director, United States Arms Control and Disarmament Agency; WILLIAM G. ROBINSON; GARY M. ONCALE; AMBASSADOR MICHAEL NEWLIN; CHARLES RAY; MARK KORO; GREG STARK; Defendants-Appellants.

No. 97-16686

UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE NINTH CIRCUIT

Filed September 30, 1999

HUG, Chief Judge:

1

Upon the vote of a majority of nonrecused regular active judges of this court, it is ordered that this case be reheard by the en banc court pursuant to Circuit Rule 35-3. The three-judge panel opinion, Bernstein v. U.S. Dept. of Justice, 176 F.3d 1132 (9th Cir. 1999), is withdrawn.