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

Re: [dvd-discuss]Lexmark Decision

But the judge also said the LexMark wrote its own unique programming 
language.  I have no idea if that is correct, but if so, it is not an 
insignificant fact.

At 06:44 PM 3/23/2003 -0800, microlenz@earthlink.net wrote:
>Having gone through some of the findings from the Eastern Kentucky court, the
>case has bizarre features. Lexmark copyrighted  37 and 55 byte programs.
>Lexmark has a copyright on the programs registered with the copyright office.
>SCC copied the program verbatim. The judge went to great pains to point out
>that SCC could have done all sorts of things to replicate the 
>functionality and
>do the authentication sequence but did not. Where I think the judge erred is
>not in his reasoning but his application of the law. The DMCA is not involved
>at all. Given the validity of Lexmarks copyright, then this is merely a 
>case of
>copyright infringement. The authentication is NOT an access control, using 
>judges own reasoning. So the DMCA really isn't involved. Now I have doubts 
>Lexmark's code is truly copyrightable. The judge made comments on how Lexmark
>made created choices regarding algorithms and the like. I don't see that a
>choice of algorithms is copyrightable nor that it is truly possible to be
>creative or original in 37 or 55 bytes.

James S. Tyre                               mailto:jstyre@jstyre.com
Law Offices of James S. Tyre          310-839-4114/310-839-4602(fax)
10736 Jefferson Blvd., #512               Culver City, CA 90230-4969
Co-founder, The Censorware Project             http://censorware.net