[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: Roy Murphy <murphy(at)panix.com>
- Date: Thu, 27 Mar 2003 16:57:15 -0500
- Reply-to: dvd-discuss(at)cyber.law.harvard.edu
- Sender: owner-dvd-discuss(at)cyber.law.harvard.edu
- User-agent: Mozilla/5.0 (X11; U; Linux i586; en-US; rv:1.3b) Gecko/20030210
Michael Rolenz wrote:
> I haven't finished all the legalese but it seems that SSC may have
> duplicated Lexmarks program but the way the program seems to have been
> used in the authentication was not FUNCTIONAL but more like a giant
> key. comparable to me using a Tom clancy quotation as a key. The words
> are copyrighted but I'm not using them in AS copyright material merely
> a key. The court only references the expert witnesses and it's not
> clear that the judge got it all right.
> This makes interesting reading and worth some thought and analysis. Is
> there anyway to get the transcript of the case? The electronic filings
> doesn't seem to be online at their website
From my reading of the filings, it seems that the toner program
contained in the cartridges was both a key and a functional program. The
program was read off the cartridge and then checked for authenticity.
Perhaps something such as an MD5sum or a otherr hash was used. Then, if
the program was authenticated, it was executed in some program context.
I think it is factually incorrect that some other program could have
been substituted for the one in the cartridge. It would have had a
different signature and would not have been executed.
From the point of view of Copyright Law, I'd say that the merger
doctrine -- the merger of fact and expression, makes the copyright on
the toner program unenforcable.