RE: [dvd-discuss] Gedanken Experiment -Unix and Norton

["juergen + barbara" <jmhoraze(at)compuserve.com>]

I venture they have stored the Virus-signatures in a compact form, not just
a, say, simple list in a text file.

Also, identifying and then listing a Virus-signature and the remedy may be
protected too.  It not just the identification but also the way to remove a
Virus which is stored in the NAV and MacAfee definition file (look for
certain associated files, cleanup the Registry in a certain way, etc.).  (To
give them also a competitive edge.)

On the other hand, looking at the copyright notices of Symantec Norton
SystemWorks 2003 it only mentions (and only there, not at the component
level Norton AntiVirus) "This computer program is protected by copyright law
and international treaties..."
I does not say anything about configuration or datafiles.

*jm*




-----Original Message-----
From: majordomo-owner@eon.law.harvard.edu
[mailto:majordomo-owner@eon.law.harvard.edu]On Behalf Of
microlenz@earthlink.net
Sent: Sonntag, 06. Juli 2003 12:36
To: dvd-discuss@eon.law.harvard.edu
Subject: RE: [dvd-discuss] Gedanken Experiement -Unix and Norton



On 5 Jul 2003 at 21:03, juergen + barbara wrote:

From:           	"juergen + barbara" <jmhoraze@compuserve.com>
To:             	<dvd-discuss@eon.law.harvard.edu>
Subject:        	RE: [dvd-discuss] Gedanken Experiement -Unix and Norton
Date sent:      	Sat, 5 Jul 2003 21:03:07 -0700
Send reply to:  	dvd-discuss@eon.law.harvard.edu

>
> well do you use your own format of the AV definition file or are you using
> MacAfee's or Norton's?  For the later they could get you -- DMCA seems to
> prohibit reverse-engineering...
>

Well that's the question. What is copyrightable in their NAV definition
file?
The signature of the virus? That's a fact. The definitions file is no more
than
a listing of virus and signatures for them-a listing of facts this is no
more
copyrightable than the telephone book. So how can their file be copyrighted?
If it is not copyrighted how can the DMCA be involved.

OK now consider if I wrote a translation program of the definitions to an
open
file format. Does that program violate the DMCA? It should not because the
material is not copyrighted and so circumvention is not an issue...or should
be. The exemptions the LOC recommends to congress might be interesting.

NOw I will admit given that, using encryption on the file is an ideal way
for
Norton or Macaffee to protect their facts from being able to be used by
others
but also allowing them to claim DMCA protection on something that is not
copyrighted should also not be allowed.
>
>
> -----Original Message-----
> From: majordomo-owner@eon.law.harvard.edu
> [mailto:majordomo-owner@eon.law.harvard.edu]On Behalf Of
> microlenz@earthlink.net
> Sent: Freitag, 04. Juli 2003 10:57
> To: dvd-discuss@eon.law.harvard.edu
> Subject: [dvd-discuss] Gedanken Experiement -Unix and Norton
>
>
>
> In view of the recent discussions on the w32.klem.h consider this...
>
> Suppose someone writes a virus scanner for Unix that uses Norton
Anti-Virus
> definition files rather than their code. Is that copyright infringement?
Theft
> of trade secret? Or DMCA violation? Now I'd bet money that Symantec would
haul
> anybody who did that into court and try arguing all three.
>
>