One pager on the predecessor to IPRED2, the original 2004 EU Directive on Copyright Enforcement.

The Electronic Frontier Foundation (EFF) submitted the following comments tothe Office of the United States Trade Representative (USTR) in response to the Requestfor Public Comments on a Proposed Anti-Counterfeiting Trade Agreement, published inthe Federal Register of February 15, 2008 (Volume 73, Number 32, pages 8910-8911).

Judge's order sealing the crypto code case exhibits, since ITAR forbids our distributing them.

Cover letters from DJB to State Dept for five separate CJ Requests

Letter from Robinson to DJB, CJ determination for CJ 191-92

The complaint (charges) filed by EFF and Dan Bernstein against the State Dept. et al., seeking a ruling against the US ITAR export restrictions on encryption, as unconstitutional restraint of free speech.

The government's attempt to have the case dismissed for lack of jurisdiction.

This is a memo prepared for Davis Robinson, then the Legal Adviser for the Department of State. This is a very well-documented paper on the various unconstitutional provisions of ITAR. The two areas this memo concentrates on are the "technical data" definition as well as the definition of "export." Near the conclusion, Simms states: "We remain of the opinion, however, that ... the ITAR still present some areas of potentially unconstitutional application. ...The best legal solution ... is for the Department of State, not the courts, to narrow the regulations."

Bernstein's request that the court take judicial notice of the memos from the Justice Department's Office of Legal Counsel (the Exhibits to Lee Tien declaration).

Bernstein's objection to the introduction of evidence (declarations of William Lowell and Louis Giles) at this stage of the proceedings, when only the question of jurisdiction is supposed to be decided. In deciding jurisdiction, the truth of the allegations is assumed unless actual facts are disputed.

Reply Memorandum of Points and Authorities in further support of Defendants' Motion to Dismiss. The government's rebuttal to Bernstein's opposition to its motion to dismiss.

Apr. 15, 1996 court decision denying the govt. motion to dismiss, in Bernstein v. State Dept. This is a very important decision, as it establishes caselaw precedent for the First Amendment protection of software. The court also takes the government to task for restricting the paper publication of an encryption algorithm for over two years. This is not the final decision in the case, just the denial of the dismissal motion, and judge's commentary.

Bernstein's motion for partial summary judgment, arguing that the ITAR and AECA are unconstitutional because they are a prior restraint on protected publication and speech, that they are vague, and that they are overbroad. Also includes many interesting declarations submitted to the court by various people around the community about scientific communication, crypto, and the export laws.