[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next][Date Index][Thread Index]
RE: [dvd-discuss] did everyone already see this?
- To: <dvd-discuss(at)eon.law.harvard.edu>
- Subject: RE: [dvd-discuss] did everyone already see this?
- From: "Richard Hartman" <hartman(at)onetouch.com>
- Date: Mon, 8 Sep 2003 09:01:04 -0700
- Reply-to: dvd-discuss(at)eon.law.harvard.edu
- Sender: owner-dvd-discuss(at)eon.law.harvard.edu
- Thread-index: AcN1iio3YjFE31RpQF+SnaAvmgYcegAmCjVA
- Thread-topic: [dvd-discuss] did everyone already see this?
btw: to qualify for DMCA the TPM must be protecting some copyrightable content. AFAICT the garage doors were protecting cars, not content. Why wasn't the claim dismissed as inapplicable?
-Richard M. Hartman
186,000 mi/sec: not just a good idea, it's the LAW!
> -----Original Message-----
> From: Dan Steinberg [mailto:email@example.com]
> Sent: Sunday, September 07, 2003 2:52 PM
> To: DVD- DISCUSS
> Subject: [dvd-discuss] did everyone already see this?
> COURT DENIES DMCA CLAIM BETWEEN GARAGE DOOR OPENER RIVALS
> A federal court has denied in part a motion for summary
> judgement against a company accused of making compatible
> garage door openers in violation of the DMCA. The
> Chamberlain Group sued its competitor in January 2003 with a
> claim that the opener violated a DMCA ban on trafficking in
> circumvention devices. The court rejected the claim and
> noted its appreciation for an amici brief that argued that
> Chamberlain's interpretation of the DMCA would stifle
> innovation and increase consumer prices. Case name is
> Chamberlain Group v. Skylink Technologies.
> Dan Steinberg
> SYNTHESIS:Law & Technology
> 35, du Ravin phone: (613) 794-5356
> Chelsea, Quebec fax: (819) 827-4398
> J9B 1N1 e-mail:firstname.lastname@example.org