Re: [dvd-discuss]Lexmark Decision

[microlenz(at)earthlink.net]

On 29 Mar 2003 at 11:30, noah silva wrote:

Subject:        	Re: [dvd-discuss]Lexmark Decision
From:           	noah silva <nsilva@atari-source.com>
To:             	dvd-discuss@eon.law.harvard.edu
Organization:   	atari-source.com
Date sent:      	29 Mar 2003 11:30:36 -0500
Send reply to:  	dvd-discuss@eon.law.harvard.edu

> I would think as soon as they put the hash checking in there, so that
> only one program will work, they are limiting the creativity of
> something that would work.  

THe judge ruled otherwise. They could have used the right hash for Lexmarks 
program and still transmitted an alternative program to the printer. Anybody 
game to try?

>It seems to me that if Lexmark purposely
> limited the options to copying their program, then they are in fact
> encouraging copyright violation of their own code.  

One must ask how one can have interoperability if there is only one program 
that can work? In this case, one is copyrighting a FACT and not a creative 
work.

>How can you sue for
> something you don't try to prevent? mitigation of damages?

YOu don't have to with copyright. You own it and don't have to do anything.

> 
> At any rate it's obvious that Lexmark's pulling a hat trick here.
> 
> I really have to wonder: Why are technically illiterate people permitted
> to be judges for cases involving technology?  

Because despite USSC rulings, judges are loath to admit technical people into 
the process as amicus curae.

>Immagine if I could listen
> to some "expert advice" from an obviously biased person and then based
> solely upon that make a medical decision for someone.  Except at least
> that would affect only one person.
> 
> I've often wondered how we can home up with such incompetant judges that
> will so obviously choose the wrong decision.  One of my friends (who is
> a lawyer) recently reminded me that very few of them have to earn their
> position.   Instead, many of them are simply "appointed" by friends,
> people they kissed up to, etc.  What a sad situation.
> 
> 
> As an aside:  My friend (not from the US) recently asked me "If the
> polls show that less than 50% of Americans  support war in Iraq? Then
> why is the US there?  Isn't it a democracy, doesn't majority rule?".  In
> this case, it may have been the president's decision (though he should
> do what the public that elected him wants I would think!), but in most
> cases, it is congress/senate that passes things through... and it has
> become abundantly clear that senators and congresspeople vote the way
> they want to (or they are told to..), not the way their constituants
> want them to.  Every letter I have ever sent to mine saying something
> like "I Oppose DMCA" (or patriot act, whatever), has always been replied
> to with a form letter saying "we believe that XXX law is important
> because YYY, so we will be supporting it".  Aren't they supposed to
> _listen_ to their constituents, not _tell_ them which laws they
> support?  Seems to me that the information is flowing the wrong way.  
> 
> 
> thanks,
>     noah silva
> 
> 2003 $BG/ (B03 $B7n (B27 $BF| (B( $BLZ (B) $B$N (B16 $B;~ (B57 $BJ,$K (B Roy
> Murphy  $B[)$/ (B: > 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. >  -- noah
> silva <nsilva@atari-source.com> atari-source.com
>