Re: [dvd-discuss] Court Sides With Geac in Mainframe Software Cas e

[Eric Seppanen <eds(at)reric.net>]

You guys are way behind on this.  Congress threatened to pass a law 
forcing them, and they (automakers) agreed to share the information.  It's 
a dead issue.  It never involved the DMCA in the first place.

On Tue, Oct 15, 2002 at 03:33:07PM -0700, Richard Hartman wrote:
> I'll try to recall who I heard about this practice from
> and ask them for sources.
> 
> 
> -- 
> -Richard M. Hartman
> hartman@onetouch.com
> 
> 186,000 mi/sec: not just a good idea, it's the LAW!
> 
> 
> 
> > -----Original Message-----
> > From: Michael A Rolenz [mailto:Michael.A.Rolenz@aero.org]
> > Sent: Tuesday, October 15, 2002 3:26 PM
> > To: dvd-discuss@eon.law.harvard.edu
> > Cc: 'dvd-discuss@eon.law.harvard.edu';
> > owner-dvd-discuss@eon.law.harvard.edu
> > Subject: RE: [dvd-discuss] Court Sides With Geac in Mainframe Software
> > Case
> > 
> > 
> > Richard Hartman <hartman@onetouch.com> wrote:
> > 
> > "I don't think this comes under the DMCA, since diagnostic
> > information is not copyrightable,"
> > 
> > Is it?
> > 
> > The presupposes that the diagnostic information is just facts and not 
> > copyrightable. Suppose that as part of the interface to the 
> > diagnostic 
> > module, the program that the microprocessor (microcontroller) has in 
> > memory is output for comparison of version number and to see 
> > that it has 
> > not been corrupted and to verify that the diagnostic information was 
> > correctly gathered and assessed. Suppose that they put an 
> > access control 
> > on it? The program is copyrightable.  So now you have someone 
> > trying to 
> > access the diagnostic codes is circumventing access controls 
> > that protect 
> > copyright material.
> > DMCA POLICE descend upon you and you are toast..
> > 
> > Do you have a reference to the carmakers doing this? The LOC 
> > is asking for 
> > exemptions for DMCA and this seems to qualify. IF the case 
> > can be made 
> > that it IS being done and that it is a trivial matter to do what I 
> > proposed above, then an exemption must be made.  I started a 
> > TWIKI thread 
> > at Openlaw on DMCA exemptions, I'll add this one to it.
> > 
> > 
> > 
> > 
> > 
> > Richard Hartman <hartman@onetouch.com>
> > Sent by: owner-dvd-discuss@eon.law.harvard.edu
> > 10/15/2002 03:13 PM
> > Please respond to dvd-discuss
> > 
> >  
> >         To:     "'dvd-discuss@eon.law.harvard.edu'" 
> > <dvd-discuss@eon.law.harvard.edu>
> >         cc: 
> >         Subject:        RE: [dvd-discuss] Court Sides With 
> > Geac in Mainframe Software Case
> > 
> > 
> > 
> > [excerpt]
> > "It's a little scary to suggest that somebody with a copyright has the
> > prerogative to refuse any third party from servicing its 
> > software," said
> > Blecher, a partner at Blecher & Collins LLC in Los Angeles. 
> > "It gives such
> > people a monopoly on their service business."
> > [/excerpt]
> > 
> > Note that this is an issue also in the case of automobile
> > diagnostic systems.  As engines get more advanced, the
> > auto manufacturers have integrated diagnostic chips into
> > them.  Now the meaning of some of the diagnostic codes 
> > are being witheld from non-dealer service centers.  I 
> > don't think this comes under the DMCA, since diagnostic
> > information is not copyrightable, but there is certainly
> > a parallel as far as the "maintaining a monopoly in their
> > service business" aspect. 
> > 
> > Any of this counterable w/ RICO?
> > 
> > 
> > -- 
> > -Richard M. Hartman
> > hartman@onetouch.com
> > 
> > 186,000 mi/sec: not just a good idea, it's the LAW!
> > 
> > 
> > 
> > > -----Original Message-----
> > > From: D. C. Sessions [mailto:dcs@lumbercartel.com]
> > > Sent: Monday, October 14, 2002 7:34 PM
> > > To: DVD-Discuss
> > > Subject: Re: [dvd-discuss] Court Sides With Geac in 
> > Mainframe Software
> > > Case
> > > 
> > > 
> > > On Mon, 2002-10-14 at 13:34, Dean Sanchez wrote:
> > > > Did anyone notice the outcome of this case?  The Appeals 
> > > court is basically stating that modifying code for 
> > > interoperability is copyright infringement.  We don't want to 
> > > have any of the "promoting progress" nonsense getting in the 
> > > way of corporate profits, do we?  Everyone should know by now 
> > > that reverse engineering is bad, bad, bad!
> > > > 
> > > > 
> > > > 
> > > http://computerworld.com/governmenttopics/government/legalissu
> > > es/story/0,10801,74888,00.html
> > > 
> > > No comments on whether Grace intends to appeal to the USSC.
> > > Given the nature of the case, it looks like a natural.  The
> > > issues are less muddy than with some of the others we discuss
> > > here.
> > > 
> > > -- 
> > > | The race is not always to the swift, nor the battle to 
> > the strong. |
> > > | Because the slow, feeble old codgers like me cheat.       
> >          |
> > > +--------------- D. C. Sessions <dcs@lumbercartel.com> 
> > --------------+
> > > 
> > 
> > 
> >