[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next][Date Index][Thread Index]

[dvd-discuss] dvd-discuss]One More Chance for a DMCA Exemption-Static Vs Lexmark

To: dvd-discuss(at)cyber.law.harvard.edu
Subject: [dvd-discuss] dvd-discuss]One More Chance for a DMCA Exemption-Static Vs Lexmark
From: microlenz(at)earthlink.net
Date: Tue, 04 Mar 2003 19:31:43 -0800
In-reply-to: <200111051848.fA5ImAA16092@lumbercartel.com>
References: <E06ADA0073926048AD304115DD8AB6BC9D67FE@mail.onetouch.com>
Reply-to: dvd-discuss(at)cyber.law.harvard.edu
Sender: owner-dvd-discuss(at)cyber.law.harvard.edu

Static Control had a petition granted regarding Lexmark's claims that they are 
trafficking etc under the DMCA by circumventing their "Access control" to toner 
etc in cartridges. The petition is at

http://www.copyright.gov/1201/2003/petitions/

the forms were to be available 24Feb2003 but do not seem to be online yet and 
the deadline is 10March...so if you thought Lexmark's lawsuit stinks...here's 
achance to do help

Follow-Ups:
- [dvd-discuss] Copyright v. Trademark
  - From: Joshua Stratton <cpt@gryphon.auspice.net>
- Re: [dvd-discuss] CORRECTION:One More Chance for a DMCA Exemption-Static Vs Lexmark
  - From: microlenz@earthlink.net

References:
- RE: [dvd-discuss] FW: SJ MercuryNews, Ruling a blow for DVD industry (11-02-2001) (Emailing: dvdsuit02.htm)
  - From: Richard Hartman <hartman@onetouch.com>
- Re: [dvd-discuss] FW: SJ MercuryNews, Ruling a blow for DVD indus try (11-02-2001) (Emailing: dvdsuit02.htm)
  - From: "D. C. Sessions" <dcs@lumbercartel.com>

Prev by Date: RE: [dvd-discuss] "under penalty of perjury"
Next by Date: Re: [dvd-discuss] CORRECTION:One More Chance for a DMCA Exemption-Static Vs Lexmark
Previous by thread: Re: [dvd-discuss] FW: SJ MercuryNews, Ruling a blow for DVD indus try (11-02-2001) (Emailing: dvdsuit02.htm)
Next by thread: Re: [dvd-discuss] CORRECTION:One More Chance for a DMCA Exemption-Static Vs Lexmark
Index(es):
- Date
- Thread