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

[Richard Hartman <hartman(at)onetouch.com>]

Then, of course, there is "source code" and "binary code".
They could have been altering the binaries, but it is typically
source code that is subject to the NDA.

-- 
-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: Wednesday, October 16, 2002 9:49 AM
> To: DVD-Discuss
> Subject: RE: [dvd-discuss] Court Sides With Geac in Mainframe Software
> Cas e
> 
> 
> On Wed, 2002-10-16 at 09:36, Richard Hartman wrote:
> 
> > AFAICT the third-party did not modify code -- nor did
> > they _have_ the code -- they modified the binary ... 
> > perhaps they could only do this because they had 
> > knowledge of the product from when the worked there
> > ... but nonetheless, they didn't modify -- or view 
> > -- the code when they were working for the third-party.
> 
> Are we reading the same case?
> As I read it, the add-on didn't modify the code
> at all, just accessed it in novel ways.
> 
> -- 
> | 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> --------------+
>