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

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

On Friday 11 January 2002 15:05, you wrote:
# 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
# http://www.tecchannel.de/news/20020110/thema20020110-6415.html).
# 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
# license.

The patent may be expiring, but the trademark is certainly still solid.
Also, whether we have the patent or not we certainly *did* create
the CD standard, so the Company's opinions on the matter should
carry weight with prosecutors and courts.

| I'm old enough that I don't have to pretend to be grown up.|
+----------- D. C. Sessions <dcs@lumbercartel.com> ----------+