RE: [dvd-discuss] Court Sides With Geac in Mainframe Software Case

["Michael A Rolenz" <Michael.A.Rolenz(at)aero.org>]

Richard Hartman <hartman@onetouch.com> wrote:

"I don't think this comes under the DMCA, since diagnostic
information is not copyrightable,"

Is it?

The presupposes that the diagnostic information is just facts and not 
copyrightable. Suppose that as part of the interface to the diagnostic 
module, the program that the microprocessor (microcontroller) has in 
memory is output for comparison of version number and to see that it has 
not been corrupted and to verify that the diagnostic information was 
correctly gathered and assessed. Suppose that they put an access control 
on it? The program is copyrightable.  So now you have someone trying to 
access the diagnostic codes is circumventing access controls that protect 
copyright material.
DMCA POLICE descend upon you and you are toast..

Do you have a reference to the carmakers doing this? The LOC is asking for 
exemptions for DMCA and this seems to qualify. IF the case can be made 
that it IS being done and that it is a trivial matter to do what I 
proposed above, then an exemption must be made.  I started a TWIKI thread 
at Openlaw on DMCA exemptions, I'll add this one to it.





Richard Hartman <hartman@onetouch.com>
Sent by: owner-dvd-discuss@eon.law.harvard.edu
10/15/2002 03:13 PM
Please respond to dvd-discuss

 
        To:     "'dvd-discuss@eon.law.harvard.edu'" <dvd-discuss@eon.law.harvard.edu>
        cc: 
        Subject:        RE: [dvd-discuss] Court Sides With Geac in Mainframe Software Case



[excerpt]
"It's a little scary to suggest that somebody with a copyright has the
prerogative to refuse any third party from servicing its software," said
Blecher, a partner at Blecher & Collins LLC in Los Angeles. "It gives such
people a monopoly on their service business."
[/excerpt]

Note that this is an issue also in the case of automobile
diagnostic systems.  As engines get more advanced, the
auto manufacturers have integrated diagnostic chips into
them.  Now the meaning of some of the diagnostic codes 
are being witheld from non-dealer service centers.  I 
don't think this comes under the DMCA, since diagnostic
information is not copyrightable, but there is certainly
a parallel as far as the "maintaining a monopoly in their
service business" aspect. 

Any of this counterable w/ RICO?


-- 
-Richard M. Hartman
hartman@onetouch.com

186,000 mi/sec: not just a good idea, it's the LAW!



> -----Original Message-----
> From: D. C. Sessions [mailto:dcs@lumbercartel.com]
> Sent: Monday, October 14, 2002 7:34 PM
> To: DVD-Discuss
> Subject: Re: [dvd-discuss] Court Sides With Geac in Mainframe Software
> Case
> 
> 
> On Mon, 2002-10-14 at 13:34, Dean Sanchez wrote:
> > Did anyone notice the outcome of this case?  The Appeals 
> court is basically stating that modifying code for 
> interoperability is copyright infringement.  We don't want to 
> have any of the "promoting progress" nonsense getting in the 
> way of corporate profits, do we?  Everyone should know by now 
> that reverse engineering is bad, bad, bad!
> > 
> > 
> > 
> http://computerworld.com/governmenttopics/government/legalissu
> es/story/0,10801,74888,00.html
> 
> No comments on whether Grace intends to appeal to the USSC.
> Given the nature of the case, it looks like a natural.  The
> issues are less muddy than with some of the others we discuss
> here.
> 
> -- 
> | The race is not always to the swift, nor the battle to the strong. |
> | Because the slow, feeble old codgers like me cheat.                |
> +--------------- D. C. Sessions <dcs@lumbercartel.com> --------------+
>