A Note from the Editor
A Note from the Editor
A Special Note from the Editor
Barbara Pierce
Occasionally in the blindness
field a circumstance so extraordinary arises that it demands unusual treatment
in these pages. The recent U.S. District Court decision in the Eastern District
of New York in the case of Independent Living Aids versus Maxi-Aids is such
an instance. The entire March issue is, therefore, devoted to telling the story
of this case as it unfolded. We have tried to do so chiefly in the actual words
of the trial transcript prepared by the court reporter, so to the lay mind
the narrative line may sometimes seem somewhat repetitive and slow-moving.
But it seemed important as far as possible to let the principals tell the story
in their own words and to let their actions, as described in their testimony,
speak for themselves. It is mportant, however, to remember that the case is
by no means over. As the counsel for the defense,
Mark Mulholland, Esq., told me in no uncertain terms, this decision was only
the first round in this case. He explained that in copyright infringement cases
the initial damages established by the jury are quite likely—more likely
than in almost any other type of case—to be reduced by later court action.
Nonetheless, for four weeks people testified
in open court about the actions of the defendants and the plaintiff and the
policies of the two companies. After hearing the evidence and spending time
carefully considering what they had heard, a jury came to certain conclusions.
That story and those conclusions have implications and repercussions for the
entire blindness field. For this reason we have devoted the March issue to
an account of this trial and only this trial. The April issue will be published
soon and will contain the convention information for which everyone has been
eagerly waiting. Meanwhile we commend to your attention the important matter
of Independent Living Aids and Marvin Sandler versus Maxi-Aids and the Zaretsky
family. Read carefully and ponder.
Share a Comment