[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next][Date Index][Thread Index]
Re: [dvd-discuss] Re: Lexmark Decision
- To: dvd-discuss(at)cyber.law.harvard.edu
- Subject: Re: [dvd-discuss] Re: Lexmark Decision
- From: "D. C. Sessions" <dvd(at)lumbercartel.com>
- Date: Sun, 30 Mar 2003 07:41:03 -0700
- In-reply-to: <20030330110517.GA27357@sethf.com>
- References: <20030330110517.GA27357@sethf.com>
- Reply-to: dvd-discuss(at)cyber.law.harvard.edu
- Sender: owner-dvd-discuss(at)cyber.law.harvard.edu
- User-agent: KMail/1.5.1
On Sunday 30 March 2003 04:05, Seth Finkelstein wrote:
# Arguably, this isn't right. There are other blocks of bits
# which will work. However, it is almost impossible for someone else to
# *find* or *derive* those other blocks of bits, because that would
# require knowing both Lexmark's language *and* program authentication
Creativity isn't about "easy." The law doesn't require that expression
be without effort, nor (as far as I know) is there a limit on the difficulty
involved. If SCC isn't willing to invest the time and effort required,
it's not up to the Court to keep their costs down.
A: Because it messes up the order in which people normally read text.
Q: Why is top-posting such a bad thing?
Q: What is the most annoying thing on usenet?