Re: [dvd-discuss]Lexmark Decision

[Noah silva <nsilva(at)atari-source.com>]

just to play devil's advocate...

I often write programs in freepascal...

the freepascal is a program itself though, written in a language. (it can
compile itself, actually).

Some basic compilers I have used were written in C.  GCC is written in
itself, etc.

If you say that I can't copyright a language, do you mean an
implementation of that language, or the language itself.  A particular
implementation of a language and thus should be copyrightable (and not
patentable.. grumble..).  The specifications for the language shouldn't be
protected though, and I would think that even if they were, writing a
compatible language would fall under the DMCA's "interoperability" clause.

  -- noah silva

On Mon, 24 Mar 2003 microlenz@earthlink.net wrote:

> On 23 Mar 2003 at 18:54, James S. Tyre wrote:
> 
> Date sent:      	Sun, 23 Mar 2003 18:54:35 -0800
> To:             	dvd-discuss@eon.law.harvard.edu
> From:           	"James S. Tyre" <jstyre@jstyre.com>
> Subject:        	Re: [dvd-discuss]Lexmark Decision
> Send reply to:  	dvd-discuss@eon.law.harvard.edu
> 
> > But the judge also said the LexMark wrote its own unique programming 
> > language.  I have no idea if that is correct, but if so, it is not an 
> > insignificant fact.
> 
> But a programming language is not an idea or the expression of an idea but the 
> means of expressing ideas. In mathematics the language of expressing ideas in 
> analysis is totally different than the language of expressing ideas in abstract 
> algebra. I can no more understand the works of a good friend of mine in 
> Algebraic K-Theory than he can some of the work I have done in analysis. Our 
> languages are different. (also our thought processes. He's teaching a course in 
> cryptography at a very well known university. yet the scales of going from 2^56 
> to 2^112 required a little thought. ). I would have to argue that the language 
> for communication to people or to a machine cannot nor should it ever be 
> allowed to be copyrighted or patented.
> 
> > 
> > At 06:44 PM 3/23/2003 -0800, microlenz@earthlink.net wrote:
> > >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.
> > 
> > 
> > --------------------------------------------------------------------
> > James S. Tyre                               mailto:jstyre@jstyre.com
> > Law Offices of James S. Tyre          310-839-4114/310-839-4602(fax)
> > 10736 Jefferson Blvd., #512               Culver City, CA 90230-4969
> > Co-founder, The Censorware Project             http://censorware.net
> > 
> 
> 
>