[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next][Date Index][Thread Index]
Re: [dvd-discuss]Lexmark Decision
- To: dvd-discuss(at)cyber.law.harvard.edu
- Subject: Re: [dvd-discuss]Lexmark Decision
- From: microlenz(at)earthlink.net
- Date: Sun, 23 Mar 2003 18:44:42 -0800
- In-reply-to: <20030317172004.Q6757@inka.de>
- References: <OF56FBFE61.4EC5FCDF-ON88256CEC.0057C9EE@aero.org>; from Michael.A.Rolenz@aero.org on Mon, Mar 17, 2003 at 08:00:43AM -0800
- Reply-to: dvd-discuss(at)cyber.law.harvard.edu
- Sender: owner-dvd-discuss(at)cyber.law.harvard.edu
Having gone through some of the findings from the Eastern Kentucky court, the
case has bizarre features. Lexmark copyrighted 37 and 55 byte programs.
Lexmark has a copyright on the programs registered with the copyright office.
SCC copied the program verbatim. The judge went to great pains to point out
that SCC could have done all sorts of things to replicate the functionality and
do the authentication sequence but did not. Where I think the judge erred is
not in his reasoning but his application of the law. The DMCA is not involved
at all. Given the validity of Lexmarks copyright, then this is merely a case of
copyright infringement. The authentication is NOT an access control, using the
judges own reasoning. So the DMCA really isn't involved. Now I have doubts that
Lexmark's code is truly copyrightable. The judge made comments on how Lexmark
made created choices regarding algorithms and the like. I don't see that a
choice of algorithms is copyrightable nor that it is truly possible to be
creative or original in 37 or 55 bytes.