As far the Grokster decision, I have read Souter's opinion (the actual opinion of the Court) and in my view it is exceptional, as in quite good. I do not like copyright law as it exists, but given that it is what it is, the rule set forth in the decision is very well crafted. It is little surprise that the full court joined unanimously in the opinion. You could use the rationale and rule of the Supreme Court's Grokster case to defend sale and distribution of portable MP3 players, so it looks to me like the use of portable MP3 devices is on solid legal ground for the long term.
Notice that in the Grokster case Souter's opinion concludes in the penultimate paragraph that "on remand, reconsideration of MGMs motion for summary judgment will be in order." In other words, it appears that not only did he feel that summary judgment in favor of the defendants was not in order, but that the leaning of the entire Surpeme Court is that MGM et. al.'s motion for summary judgment deserves serious consideration. This would be the polar opposite of the Federal District court's decision.
The article quoted above does not really say much. I think the Supreme Court's opinion is clear. I think a reading of the Supreme Court's opinion is much more worthwhile than a reading of the article. The new doctrine will be very fact sensitive and will turn on the precise facts of a particular case. The rule is a rule of judgment rather than a bright line, which is what is needed, and is focused on intent and conduct of the defendant (rather than the nature of the technology), which is appropriate in my view.
Here's a printer-friendly version of the case from a good free legal news service:
http://caselaw.lp.findlaw.com/scripts/printer_friendly.pl?page=us/000/04-480.html
It's 27 pages long in this printer-friendly form (and 67 pages in the Supreme Court's official-looking format). The subject matter is not that difficult.
I was not impressed with Ginsburg's concurring opinion in Grokster. Neither was Breyer, which is why he felt compelled to write another concurring opinion, which is an outstanding summary of implications of the opinion and the current state of the law, IMHO.
I think the case is good for the electronics and computer industry. After Grokster, it should be fairly easy to market new products and softwares capable of both infringing and non-infringing uses without worry of prosecution or of being sued for copyright infringement of third parties.
