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

Re: [dvd-discuss] [openlaw] Governmenttakesmoreextremelineinsecond"Eldred" case

On 01/11/02 at 13:15, 'twas brillig and Michael A Rolenz scrobe:
> One tantalizing question is the fact that the UMP CDs do not adhere to the 
> standards created almost 20yrs ago. IN that sense they are deliberatly 
> defective. I don't think any legal scholars have ever addressed what sort 
> of liability a company incurs by deliberatly creating defective goods for 
> the market place. To my way of thinking that constitutes bad faith and 
> should set them up for consequential damages if not punitive ones.

	Apparently Philips is making similar noises, according to a /.
story (http://slashdot.org/article.pl?sid=02/01/11/1816258 which cites
Philips seems to say that copy protection violates the CD standard and
therefore "copy-protected" discs should not bear the CD logo.
Unfortunately the source article is in German so it's a little
difficult for me to be sure of how strongly Philips feels about this;
IIRC their CD/DA patents are on their last legs so it's possible they
don't want to bother forcing the record companies to comply with the

Ole Craig * olc@cs.umass.edu * UNIX; postmaster, news, web; SGI martyr *
CS Computing Facility, UMass * <www.cs.umass.edu/~olc/> for public key 

perl -e 'print$i=pack(c5,(41*2),sqrt(7056),(unpack(c,H)-2),oct(115),10);'