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

Re: [dvd-discuss]Lexmark Decision

That puzzled me too. I wish one could get copies of the transcript or their code. It's also a problematic one. Can one copyright or patent a language? What unique aspects of it would be copyrightable? The statements "x=x+1" or "x++" are old ones. A language that used either could not claim protection for those statements. If the language is very high level, then one would be asking for protection for a sequence of fairly obvious operations which one could argue do not require any originality or creativity. Take a look at


Download Program
Check Program
If Program is OK, then
             run printer


             stop printer
             flash front panel light



BTW - this exceeds 55 bytes I think even without the blank lines.

If LExmark is copyrighting a language, then how can one write an alternative code to make the printer work, if the language it must be expressed in is copyrighted?

"James S. Tyre" <jstyre@jstyre.com>
Sent by: owner-dvd-discuss@eon.law.harvard.edu

03/23/2003 06:54 PM
Please respond to dvd-discuss

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