[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next][Date Index][Thread Index]
Re: [dvd-discuss] DMCA: Skylink beats Chamberlain
- To: "James S. Tyre" <jstyre(at)jstyre.com>, dvd-discuss(at)eon.law.harvard.edu
- Subject: Re: [dvd-discuss] DMCA: Skylink beats Chamberlain
- From: microlenz(at)earthlink.net
- Date: Thu, 13 Nov 2003 20:09:25 -0800
- In-reply-to: <4.3.2.7.2.20031113185830.04e0f130@earthlink.net>
- Reply-to: dvd-discuss(at)eon.law.harvard.edu
- Sender: owner-dvd-discuss(at)eon.law.harvard.edu
It makes interesting reading...the judge was not impressed with Chamberlain
"Tone’s conclusory assertion that Chamberlain did not authorize the
circumvention of its rolling code GDOs has little weight."
In the alternative, Chamberlain claims that restrictions on the use of
competing transmitters can be found on its webpage, which does not identify any
non-Chamberlain transmitters in its GDO/accessory compatibility chart, and in
its owners’ manual, which provides instructions for using the Security+ GDO
only with other Security+ transmitters. (Pl. Mem., at 7.) Again, the court is
not"persuaded."
"GDO transmitters are similar to television remote controls in that consumers
of both products may need to replace them at some point due to damage or loss,
and may program them to work with other devices manufactured by different
companies. In both cases, consumers have a reasonable expectation that they can
replace the original product with a competing, universal product without
violating federal law."