[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next][Date Index][Thread Index]
Re: [dvd-discuss] Is SCO Entitled?
- To: dvd-discuss(at)eon.law.harvard.edu
- Subject: Re: [dvd-discuss] Is SCO Entitled?
- From: Joshua Stratton <cpt(at)gryphon.auspice.net>
- Date: Tue, 12 Aug 2003 12:16:42 -0400 (EDT)
- In-reply-to: <firstname.lastname@example.org>
- Reply-to: dvd-discuss(at)eon.law.harvard.edu
- Sender: owner-dvd-discuss(at)eon.law.harvard.edu
On 12 Aug 2003, Steve Stearns wrote:
> One thing that intrigues me about this case is SCO's hesitation to point
> out the specific violations.
Meh. If they're serious, they'll have to. As it stands, it looks as though
they're just spreading FUD as a short-term strategy to get some cash and
boost their stock. We'll find out soon enough.
> Given an API with defined inputs and outputs, the exact implementation
> of the code can be done any of a number of ways. Certainly the
> implementation can vary in quality, but ultimately the uniqueness of the
> implementation is mostly irrelevant.
Well, this isn't necessarily true. Sometimes it may be that there are only
a few possible, reasonable implementations. In these cases the merger
doctrine should kick in, prohibiting a copyright since it would be
excessively powerful and approach being a restriction on the use of an
Which doesn't happen terribly often, but it's nice to know there's a
method of handling such cases.
As for removing the infringing code without getting the law involved, bear
in mind that SCO likely doesn't care about protecting their code. They're
in it for the money.