On: 9th Circuit holds that scraping a public website does not violate the CFAA [pdf]

[foota]

I disagree about the tone, it seems to suggest to me that the judge believes there is a strong case here for hiQ.

[henryfjordan → foota]

I agree, but there's a difference between "hiQ has a strong case" and "Here is the final ruling on the hiQ case". I was trying to point out that the case is not over or ruled on at all. Just the preliminary injunction.

[rhizome → henryfjordan]

Oh is that all, just a PI against their fundamental argument.

[AznHisoka → henryfjordan]

"Just the preliminary injunction."

But I thought that was a few years ago!

How many more over-rulings, or appeals do we freaking need? I really hope this is the final ruling.

[shkkmo → AznHisoka]

This ruling isn't on the actual case. The ruling is about the injunction being upheld while the case is tried.

Funnily enough the judge has a similar concern:

>> I write separately to express my concern that “in some cases, parties appeal orders granting or denying motions for preliminary injunctions in order to ascertain the views of the appellate court on the merits of the litigation.”