I would think as soon as they put the hash checking in there, so that
only one program will work, they are limiting the creativity of
something that would work. It seems to me that if Lexmark purposely
limited the options to copying their program, then they are in fact
encouraging copyright violation of their own code. How can you sue for
something you don't try to prevent? mitigation of damages?
At any rate it's obvious that Lexmark's pulling a hat trick here.
I really have to wonder: Why are technically illiterate people permitted
to be judges for cases involving technology? Immagine if I could listen
to some "expert advice" from an obviously biased person and then based
solely upon that make a medical decision for someone. Except at least
that would affect only one person.
I've often wondered how we can home up with such incompetant judges that
will so obviously choose the wrong decision. One of my friends (who is
a lawyer) recently reminded me that very few of them have to earn their
position. Instead, many of them are simply "appointed" by friends,
people they kissed up to, etc. What a sad situation.
As an aside: My friend (not from the US) recently asked me "If the
polls show that less than 50% of Americans support war in Iraq? Then
why is the US there? Isn't it a democracy, doesn't majority rule?". In
this case, it may have been the president's decision (though he should
do what the public that elected him wants I would think!), but in most
cases, it is congress/senate that passes things through... and it has
become abundantly clear that senators and congresspeople vote the way
they want to (or they are told to..), not the way their constituants
want them to. Every letter I have ever sent to mine saying something
like "I Oppose DMCA" (or patriot act, whatever), has always been replied
to with a form letter saying "we believe that XXX law is important
because YYY, so we will be supporting it". Aren't they supposed to
_listen_ to their constituents, not _tell_ them which laws they
support? Seems to me that the information is flowing the wrong way.
thanks,
noah silva
2003年03月27日(木)の16時57分に Roy Murphy 曰く:
> Michael Rolenz wrote:
>
> > I haven't finished all the legalese but it seems that SSC may have
> > duplicated Lexmarks program but the way the program seems to have been
> > used in the authentication was not FUNCTIONAL but more like a giant
> > key. comparable to me using a Tom clancy quotation as a key. The words
> > are copyrighted but I'm not using them in AS copyright material merely
> > a key. The court only references the expert witnesses and it's not
> > clear that the judge got it all right.
> >
> > This makes interesting reading and worth some thought and analysis. Is
> > there anyway to get the transcript of the case? The electronic filings
> > doesn't seem to be online at their website
>
> From my reading of the filings, it seems that the toner program
> contained in the cartridges was both a key and a functional program. The
> program was read off the cartridge and then checked for authenticity.
> Perhaps something such as an MD5sum or a otherr hash was used. Then, if
> the program was authenticated, it was executed in some program context.
> I think it is factually incorrect that some other program could have
> been substituted for the one in the cartridge. It would have had a
> different signature and would not have been executed.
>
> From the point of view of Copyright Law, I'd say that the merger
> doctrine -- the merger of fact and expression, makes the copyright on
> the toner program unenforcable.
>
--
noah silva <nsilva@atari-source.com>
atari-source.com
Attachment:
signature.asc
Description: This is a digitally signed message part