[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, 30 Mar 2003 11:13:02 -0800
- In-reply-to: <3E8661F6.firstname.lastname@example.org>
- Reply-to: dvd-discuss(at)cyber.law.harvard.edu
- Sender: owner-dvd-discuss(at)cyber.law.harvard.edu
On 29 Mar 2003 at 22:18, Roy Murphy wrote:
Date sent: Sat, 29 Mar 2003 22:18:14 -0500
From: Roy Murphy <email@example.com>
Subject: Re: [dvd-discuss]Lexmark Decision
Send reply to: firstname.lastname@example.org
> Michael Rolenz wrote:
> > That seemed to be SCC's contention but The judge seemed to believe
> > otherwise. Is there someway to get a transcript?
> > Roy Murphy:
> > 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 case is still at the preliminary injunction stage. There isn't a
> factual record for the judge to go on.
BOth Lexmark and SCC had "Dr. Expert" testifying and seemingly the judge felt
that Lexmark's was more convincing since SCCs didn't seem to be as well
>A preliminary injuction is
> granted when there seems a likelihood to suceed on the merits and the
> possibility of irreparable harm. Copyright infringement is often
> considered "irreparable harm". If SBCs contention is that no other
> program could interoperate (i.e. the program is a key as well as a
> program) then there will be opportunity at trial for expert witnesses to
> testify to that effect.
As I think Noah pointed out, it would be a clincher if Lexmark DID produce an
alternative program but it would also be a pyrrhic victory.