[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: microlenz(at)earthlink.net
- Date: Wed, 02 Apr 2003 19:45:36 -0800
- In-reply-to: <3E89B50F.59C5A9DC@ia.nsc.com>
- Reply-to: dvd-discuss(at)cyber.law.harvard.edu
- Sender: owner-dvd-discuss(at)cyber.law.harvard.edu
On 1 Apr 2003 at 8:49, John Zulauf wrote:
Date sent: Tue, 01 Apr 2003 08:49:35 -0700
From: "John Zulauf" <email@example.com>
Subject: Re: [dvd-discuss] SCC, Lexmark, and copyright
Send reply to: firstname.lastname@example.org
> email@example.com wrote:
> > <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
> printer cartridge.
> 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
Note the <DA > above. Agreed. The distinction has gotten so blurred between
patent, copyright, and trademark that the original purposes of each has gotten
lost in this morass of legalism and "comparative advantage". The problem with
the case here is that Lexmark has a prima facie case. SCC hasn't demonstrated
that there is no alternative and therefore it IS abuse. I have no doubt that it
IS but SCC undermined their position by copying, although I think Lexmark
secured copyright was more another round in this game showing that Lexmark is
contemtuous of the whole process.
> Out of the frying, into the fire.
> <cynical>If only the cooks weren't off on vacation.</cynical>
Even so...give me one chef who is not a dandified cook!