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

[Richard Hartman <hartman(at)onetouch.com>]

Why do that when Google can do the work?

http://www.montanaforum.com/rednews/2002/09/27/build/consumers/carcodes.php?
nnn=4

Article date 27-Sep-2002 stating that the auto manufacturers
are finally going to hand over the codes.

So, this particular instance seems to have been addressed,
but the class of incident might still be worth adding to
the exception list.


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

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



> -----Original Message-----
> From: Richard Hartman [mailto:hartman@onetouch.com]
> Sent: Tuesday, October 15, 2002 3:33 PM
> To: 'dvd-discuss@eon.law.harvard.edu'
> Subject: RE: [dvd-discuss] Court Sides With Geac in Mainframe Software
> Cas e
> 
> 
> I'll try to recall who I heard about this practice from
> and ask them for sources.
> 
> 
> -- 
> -Richard M. Hartman
> hartman@onetouch.com
> 
> 186,000 mi/sec: not just a good idea, it's the LAW!
> 
> 
> 
> > -----Original Message-----
> > From: Michael A Rolenz [mailto:Michael.A.Rolenz@aero.org]
> > Sent: Tuesday, October 15, 2002 3:26 PM
> > To: dvd-discuss@eon.law.harvard.edu
> > Cc: 'dvd-discuss@eon.law.harvard.edu';
> > owner-dvd-discuss@eon.law.harvard.edu
> > Subject: RE: [dvd-discuss] Court Sides With Geac in 
> Mainframe Software
> > Case
> > 
> > 
> > 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> 
> > --------------+
> > > 
> > 
> > 
> > 
>