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

Re: [dvd-discuss]Lexmark Decision

Hmmmmm it may or may not be an insignificant fact it seems there are a 
quite a few steps omitted in the chain of reasoning before it could be 
insignificant.  I dont see how the mere exisence of a unique programming 
language takes us automatically into the lair of the DMCA beast. Sure it 
may be copyright infringement...but isnt there still a long way to go 
and an inherent big diff between mere copyright infringement and and the 
countering of copy protection required for DMCA to kick in?  Shouldnt it 
be necessary to show that the copyrighted code is the protection for the 
intellectual property?  Or am I missing something?

James S. Tyre wrote:

> 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 the
>> judges own reasoning. So the DMCA really isn't involved. Now I have 
>> doubts that
>> 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

Dan Steinberg

SYNTHESIS:Law & Technology
35, du Ravin		phone: (613) 794-5356
Chelsea, Quebec		fax:   (819) 827-4398
J9B 1N1                 e-mail:synthesis@videotron.ca