Grokster Arguments by Justice

I had hoped that someone would do this:

EEJD points me to Harlan Yu at Information Technology and the Law who was present at the Grokster oral arguments and breaks down the arguments by justice:

In all, Justices Scalia, Souter and Breyer were all squarely concerned about the impact on new inventors and future innovation, while Justices O’Conner, Ginsburg and Kennedy were most interested in the interpretation of Sony and the merits of the other proposed tests. It was difficult to glean the stance of Justices Rehnquist, Stevens and Thomas from the oral arguments alone.

My best guess is that the Court will not issue a decision that drastically hurts future technological innovation in general. It was comforting to hear that more than a few Justices recognized possible problems that future innovators would face if they reverse the 9th Circuit based on the existing Betamax doctrine. I believe that the Court will attempt to clarify the existing Betamax doctrine or will adopt a new test altogether that incorporates some conception of intent or inducement. I also presume that the Court will not issue a decision that gives companies, with Grokster-like business models, a free pass to induce infringement.

related: mp3newswire's Grokster roundup