Julius Baer should be furious with the counsel over this gaffe. Besides bringing enormous attention to the documents, and creating enormous plublicity to the case, the precedent that was set for "public domain information" makes this quite possibly one of the worst handled litigation actions this year.

It goes to underscore the point that those that don't "get" the internet, just don't get it, and that segment of the establishment that includes MSM, politicians, Judges, and business people who interact as if the internet didn't exist, or make plans or public positions in ignorance of it, are increasingly being identified as being incompetent.

I give the judge credit, instead of clinging to the initial decision he was mature and professional enough to simply state that he had no idea what he was doing, a mistake if you will, which even people who "get the internet" understand.

I think the Judge should be applauded and the attorneys for Julius Baer's team be identitified by name and picture.

I applaud the Judge in his decision.

If I was CEO of Julius Baer I would seek malpractice against the Julius Baer legal counsel.

I've never been to law school, and I could figure out that the ruling was an illegal act of Prior Restrain

Praise this judge ???

for finally figuring out something he SHOULD HAVE KNOWN in the first place ???

I don't think so

Impeachment and removal seems a better response

The judge ought to have known in the first place, but this is evidence that our system works. A mistake was made and it got corrected.

Good datum, and excellent point, Anna.
The story familiar to me is that Delaware is a corporate hot-spot because of its low taxes, thanks to DuPont’s controlling interest in, even ownership of the state.
But your remark suggests to me that that was to some degree propaganda encouraged by the anti-tax lobby.

Perhaps in fact corporations finding Delaware a helpful environment for conducting inquiry into legal questions has forced the Court of Chancery to keep up-to-date in a way less pressured places do not.

This reverses your narrative of causation; perhaps you find it a useful suggestion. Perhaps not.

In something resembling fairness, IT is evolving so rapidly as to make it difficult for courts and the law to keep up.
Nothing inherently malevolent or just misguided, but rather a lack of attention to a whole new legal world. Law develops by way of resolving disputes. Until there is a dispute there are no legal precedents and little ability to make informed judgments.

This case may, no; will, get their attention.

'Course, the bigger question is what this stunted dimwit is doing on the bench in the first place. When he first plugged up the site a few weeks ago, I was chilled by the decision - but not surprised. In the early days of the millenium, when the Bill of Rights has been throughly and expertly savaged... not surprised at all.