Re: [dvd-discuss] Bunner wins DeCSS trade secret appeal

["Michael A Rolenz" <Michael.A.Rolenz(at)aero.org>]

Yes it doesn't make sense to allow Microsoft to claim copyright 
infringment when Nobody has seen the source code - only the object code. 
To then claim trade secret on other parts and patents on a few bits and 
and then claim licensing terms that exclude RE for something bought in the 
market Nobody publishes source code yet they get copyright protection. 
They claim Trade secret status yet also claim that RE is not allowed by 
Shrinkwrap license. They can throw a bogus "software" patent at parts of 
it (most of which I've seen flunk even rudimentary examination in full 
disclosure) that  are not describing an invention but some nebulous 
description of something - method and apparatus to do X when anybody else 
can write software also to do X and thats an infringment. The patent is an 
attempt to stop people from doing X rather than using an invention that 
does X....but that's exactly the situation we have with software today. 
SOftware gets little bits and pieced of everything and so gets to ignore 
the "disadvantages" of everything.





Noah silva <nsilva@atari-source.com>
Sent by: owner-dvd-discuss@eon.law.harvard.edu
11/05/01 09:54 AM
Please respond to dvd-discuss

 
        To:     dvd-discuss@eon.law.harvard.edu
        cc: 
        Subject:        Re: [dvd-discuss] Bunner wins DeCSS trade secret appeal


If you publish something, it doesn't qualify for trade secret status
then.  If you copyright something, you've just published it - anybody can
walk into the copyright office and read it.  You can't apply for trade
secret protection on a book, etc., and it doesn't make sense to apply for
trade secret on software itself. 

  -- noah silva 

On Mon, 5 Nov 2001, Michael A Rolenz wrote:

> Jeme's right. The time or difficulty that it takes is really 
irrelevant-it 
> 
> is a slippery slope. Reverse engineeering is allowed by law. Also, what 
> would be the point of reverse engineering if the onlything that was 
> allowed to be reverse engineered was trivial. (OH...boy they used bubble 

> sort....let me use something better)(BTW - the court can seal records to 

> protect 
> trade secrets) 
> 
> But there is a more subtle point here. What is the 
> trade secret? Is how the code works the trade secret? The 
> DVDCCA would like to claim that it is. Microsoft for example would 
> like to claim that ALL of windows is a trade secret yet I'd bet 
> money that when I find a file, it's not doing anything other than 
> sting matching the directory table. WRT to software much of what seems 
be 
> getting put before the courts is the claim that the code itself is the 
> trade secret.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Jeme A Brelin <jeme@brelin.net>
> Sent by: owner-dvd-discuss@eon.law.harvard.edu
> 11/04/01 05:31 PM
> Please respond to dvd-discuss
> 
> 
>         To:     Openlaw DMCA Forum <dvd-discuss@eon.law.harvard.edu>
>         cc: 
>         Subject:        Re: [dvd-discuss] Bunner wins DeCSS trade secret 
appeal
> 
> 
> 
> On 5 Nov 2001, David Wagner wrote:
> > I don't know.  If you start from the assumption that
> > reverse-engineering object card is hugely difficult, it's not clear
> > that the legal reasoning is unreasonable.
> 
> I absolutely disagree.  The court shouldn't concern itself with the 
degree
> of difficulty or the speed with which someone accomplished a supposedly
> difficult task.  This is an impediment to the gifted or skilled.
> 
> > And it seems to me that the difficulty of reverse-engineering is a
> > factual matter that can be measured by specific tests: for instance,
> > testimony that it took only five or ten hours to reverse-engineer the
> > cryptographic mechanisms in Netscape Navigator 1.2, or X hours to
> > reverse-engineer CSS from publicly available DVD players.
> 
> The systems and technologies (state of the art) available at the time of
> the release of Netscape 1.2 (mid 1995) versus the state of the art in 
1999
> when CSS was reverse-engineered.
> 
> I don't see anything wrong with a person reverse-engineering something
> that is described as incredibly difficult in a very short time and
> claiming in court, "I can show it was reverse engineered, but it is a
> newly developed process that I maintain as a trade secret."
> 
> Actually, how do such things pan out in court?  If someone has a secret
> process for doing something and it becomes the subject in a court case,
> how does one show the process to the court without revealing the secret 
to
> the competitor?
> 
> J.
> -- 
>    -----------------
>      Jeme A Brelin
>     jeme@brelin.net
>    -----------------
>  [cc] counter-copyright
>  http://www.openlaw.org
> 
> 
> 
> 
>