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

RE: [dvd-discuss]Lexmark Decision



When you say "implementation of a language" you
are actually talking about the _compiler_ ... which
may be copyrightable under the current laws.  However
if you are talking about copyrighting the _language_
you are talking about the syntax and the semantics
of the beast -- essentially an intangible.  You might
be able to copyright a _manual_ describing the language,
but there would be nothing to stop me from writing my
own as long as it didn't lift your deathless prose ;-)


-- 
-Richard M. Hartman
hartman@onetouch.com

186,000 mi/sec: not just a good idea, it's the LAW!



> -----Original Message-----
> From: Noah silva [mailto:nsilva@atari-source.com]
> Sent: Tuesday, March 25, 2003 12:16 PM
> To: dvd-discuss@eon.law.harvard.edu
> Subject: Re: [dvd-discuss]Lexmark Decision
> 
> 
> just to play devil's advocate...
> 
> I often write programs in freepascal...
> 
> the freepascal is a program itself though, written in a 
> language. (it can
> compile itself, actually).
> 
> Some basic compilers I have used were written in C.  GCC is written in
> itself, etc.
> 
> If you say that I can't copyright a language, do you mean an
> implementation of that language, or the language itself.  A particular
> implementation of a language and thus should be copyrightable (and not
> patentable.. grumble..).  The specifications for the language 
> shouldn't be
> protected though, and I would think that even if they were, writing a
> compatible language would fall under the DMCA's 
> "interoperability" clause.
> 
>   -- noah silva
> 
> On Mon, 24 Mar 2003 microlenz@earthlink.net wrote:
> 
> > On 23 Mar 2003 at 18:54, James S. Tyre wrote:
> > 
> > Date sent:      	Sun, 23 Mar 2003 18:54:35 -0800
> > To:             	dvd-discuss@eon.law.harvard.edu
> > From:           	"James S. Tyre" <jstyre@jstyre.com>
> > Subject:        	Re: [dvd-discuss]Lexmark Decision
> > Send reply to:  	dvd-discuss@eon.law.harvard.edu
> > 
> > > But the judge also said the LexMark wrote its own unique 
> programming 
> > > language.  I have no idea if that is correct, but if so, 
> it is not an 
> > > insignificant fact.
> > 
> > But a programming language is not an idea or the expression 
> of an idea but the 
> > means of expressing ideas. In mathematics the language of 
> expressing ideas in 
> > analysis is totally different than the language of 
> expressing ideas in abstract 
> > algebra. I can no more understand the works of a good 
> friend of mine in 
> > Algebraic K-Theory than he can some of the work I have done 
> in analysis. Our 
> > languages are different. (also our thought processes. He's 
> teaching a course in 
> > cryptography at a very well known university. yet the 
> scales of going from 2^56 
> > to 2^112 required a little thought. ). I would have to 
> argue that the language 
> > for communication to people or to a machine cannot nor 
> should it ever be 
> > allowed to be copyrighted or patented.
> > 
> > > 
> > > At 06:44 PM 3/23/2003 -0800, microlenz@earthlink.net wrote:
> > > >Having gone through some of the findings from the 
> Eastern Kentucky court, the
> > > >case has bizarre features. Lexmark copyrighted  37 and 
> 55 byte programs.
> > > >Lexmark has a copyright on the programs registered with 
> the copyright office.
> > > >SCC copied the program verbatim. The judge went to great 
> pains to point out
> > > >that SCC could have done all sorts of things to 
> replicate the functionality and
> > > >do the authentication sequence but did not. Where I 
> think the judge erred is
> > > >not in his reasoning but his application of the law. The 
> DMCA is not involved
> > > >at all. Given the validity of Lexmarks copyright, then 
> this is merely a case of
> > > >copyright infringement. The authentication is NOT an 
> access control, using the
> > > >judges own reasoning. So the DMCA really isn't involved. 
> Now I have doubts that
> > > >Lexmark's code is truly copyrightable. The judge made 
> comments on how Lexmark
> > > >made created choices regarding algorithms and the like. 
> I don't see that a
> > > >choice of algorithms is copyrightable nor that it is 
> truly possible to be
> > > >creative or original in 37 or 55 bytes.
> > > 
> > > 
> > > 
> --------------------------------------------------------------------
> > > James S. Tyre                               
> mailto:jstyre@jstyre.com
> > > Law Offices of James S. Tyre          
> 310-839-4114/310-839-4602(fax)
> > > 10736 Jefferson Blvd., #512               Culver City, CA 
> 90230-4969
> > > Co-founder, The Censorware Project             
> http://censorware.net
> > > 
> > 
> > 
> > 
> 
>