[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next][Date Index][Thread Index]
RE: [dvd-discuss] SCC, Lexmark, and copyright versusreverse-engineering
- To: <dvd-discuss(at)cyber.law.harvard.edu>
- Subject: RE: [dvd-discuss] SCC, Lexmark, and copyright versusreverse-engineering
- From: "Dean Sanchez" <DSANCHEZ(at)fcci-group.com>
- Date: Tue, 1 Apr 2003 11:00:09 -0500
- Reply-to: dvd-discuss(at)cyber.law.harvard.edu
- Sender: owner-dvd-discuss(at)cyber.law.harvard.edu
- Thread-index: AcL4ZoL0FWqvaDxvTWiqgdDUSuEJSAAAQkVw
- Thread-topic: [dvd-discuss] SCC, Lexmark, and copyright versusreverse-engineering
I would argue that a government-granted monopoly (copyright) is not the capitalist system at work. I would be inclined to call a trade secret a capitalist competitive advantage because it doesn't require government intervention to maintain the monopoly.
From: John Zulauf [mailto:firstname.lastname@example.org]
Sent: Tuesday, April 01, 2003 10:50 AM
Subject: Re: [dvd-discuss] SCC, Lexmark, and copyright
> <DA on>
> And if Lexmark has made RE so much more difficult, then they are entitled to
> their competitive advantage. That's the capitalist system at work.
> <DA off>
But isn't that *exactly* why we have copyright abuse and anti-trust?
Let Lexmark contend that they are selling a software product with each
The use of copyright to defend rights and markets *outside* the market
for the copyright work itself is copyright abuse. Also, the requirement
to buy a copy of an copyrighted work in order to buy ink sounds like an
illegal tying to me -- especially since it grants the ink seller a
Out of the frying, into the fire.
<cynical>If only the cooks weren't off on vacation.</cynical>