[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next][Date Index][Thread Index]

Re: [dvd-discuss]Lexmark Decision

I haven't finished all the legalese but it seems that SSC may have duplicated Lexmarks program but the way the program seems to have been used in the authentication was not FUNCTIONAL but more like a giant key. comparable to me using a Tom clancy quotation as a key. The words are copyrighted but I'm not using them in AS copyright material merely a key. The court only references the expert witnesses and it's not clear that the judge got it all right.

This makes interesting reading and worth some thought and analysis. Is there anyway to get the transcript of the case? The electronic filings doesn't seem to be online at their website

"Michael A Rolenz" <Michael.A.Rolenz@aero.org>
Sent by: owner-dvd-discuss@eon.law.harvard.edu

03/17/2003 08:42 AM
Please respond to dvd-discuss

        To:        dvd-discuss@eon.law.harvard.edu
        Subject:        Re: [dvd-discuss]Lexmark Decision

Sorry. You are right. The court decision dealt with the issuing of the preliminary injunction...which makes it even more bizarre a response to the LOC. Sayeth Lexmark "Librarian Of Congress. Thou hast no power over me for I have be declared preliminarily righteous by a Federal Court of Ken-tu-ky"

ANyone want to take a stab at rebuttal argumentation. The PDF file seems to be scanned in images rather than text (anyone OCR it?)

Sham Gardner <mail@risctaker.inka.de>
Sent by: owner-dvd-discuss@eon.law.harvard.edu

03/17/2003 08:20 AM
Please respond to dvd-discuss

       To:        dvd-discuss@eon.law.harvard.edu


       Subject:        Re: [dvd-discuss]Lexmark Decision

On Mon, Mar 17, 2003 at 08:00:43AM -0800, Michael A Rolenz wrote:
> Lexmark not only chose to write a volumous reply (28pages) but send this
> court decision double in size to the LOC saying
> "THe courts have decided so the legislature should keep their hands
> off"... remember that the USSC said the opposite in Eldred.

Have I missed the final decision here? I thought the court had only issued a
preliminary injunction so far.

> http://www.copyright.gov/1201/2003/reply/328a.pdf

My (possibly somewhat old) version of acroread claims to be "unable to
decrypt" this file.


"There has to be a media outlet thats not run by corporations that build
a drum beat for war, corporations that profit from militarism and war,
but run by journalists and artists." (Lou Hill, Pacifica Radio founder)