[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next][Date Index][Thread Index]
Re: [dvd-discuss] SCC, Lexmark, and copyright versus reverse-engineering
- To: dvd-discuss(at)cyber.law.harvard.edu
- Subject: Re: [dvd-discuss] SCC, Lexmark, and copyright versus reverse-engineering
- From: "D. C. Sessions" <dvd(at)lumbercartel.com>
- Date: Sat, 29 Mar 2003 22:40:05 -0700
- In-reply-to: <3E85B544.14740.28CEBA@localhost>
- References: <3E85B544.14740.28CEBA@localhost>
- Reply-to: dvd-discuss(at)cyber.law.harvard.edu
- Sender: owner-dvd-discuss(at)cyber.law.harvard.edu
- User-agent: KMail/1.5.1
On Saturday 29 March 2003 16:01, email@example.com wrote:
# As they are. No one says that life must be easy or that you have to get a free
# lunch. If Compaq can RE the PC bios in the mid 80s, I doubt that this is much
# worse. IF the program is truly copyrightable (and I would have to be convinced
# of that), then it is still copyright infringement and the judges comments about
# access are irrelevant (he' splitting hairs)
When Compaq reverse-engineered the PC BIOS, they had
access to the complete source code of the original, from which
they derived the specifications.
I'd say that there's a major difference in difficulty there.
A: Because it messes up the order in which people normally read text.
Q: Why is top-posting such a bad thing?
Q: What is the most annoying thing on usenet?