I've now become convinced that no one actually reads this blog, because not a single soul called me on my failure to predict what SCOTUS would do in MGM v. Grokster. A couple of weeks ago, they did indeed agree to grant cert and the case is scheduled for next spring with a decision expected by June.

So what else is there to say, except that I was wrong? Well, there's an interesting questions of whether the case will be mooted by the time it comes around, or whether a decision will matter in any event. WIRED's story asserts that file trading will continue - the question is whether it will be over industry-sponsored networks like Mashboxx or over whatever replaces Grokster.

Mashboxx is the first network announced with intention to run on top of Snocap, the latest brainstorm from Napster-founder-gone-Cartel, Shawn Fanning. Unlike store-oriented nets like iTunes, Mashboxx is a P2P trading network; however, it uses a central database of song fingerprints to assess fees and associate compensation with the trading activity. Interestingly, Mashboxx is founded by Wayne Rosso, whom you may remember as one of the founders of Grokster. So if it's the same people either way, does it matter?

It does, asserts an opinion piece by Lorraine Woellert in Business Week. Her piece doesn't contain any really deep reasoning - just a review of the assertion that Betamax doctrine is central to the understanding of this case and that SCOTUS may reshape that precedent, possibly to the detriment of a host of technology products such as iPods.

Interestingly, she notes that at the time of the Betamax trial, it was estimated that 10% or less of activity conducted by viewers with their VCRs was strictly legal. Even the Cartel is willing to admit that 10% of Grokster's activity is legit. No clue if that's going to matter here.

I'm personally unhappy that SCOTUS granted cert. and not just because I was wrong. I think the potential for damage is huge. I think the justices don't understand the technology well enough to rule on it. And I think things are just moving too quickly - a solution should be allowed to evolve rather than being forced from the bench. The likelihood that the result will be moot before its issued is prima facie evidence of this.