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

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

D. C. Sessions wrote:

>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.
Especially in this new "consent==authorization" world.