[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next][Date Index][Thread Index]
Re: [dvd-discuss]Lexmark Decision
- To: dvd-discuss(at)cyber.law.harvard.edu
- Subject: Re: [dvd-discuss]Lexmark Decision
- From: Noah silva <nsilva(at)atari-source.com>
- Date: Tue, 25 Mar 2003 15:15:41 -0500 (EST)
- In-reply-to: <3E7F5A94.6718.38E38E@localhost>
- Reply-to: dvd-discuss(at)cyber.law.harvard.edu
- Sender: owner-dvd-discuss(at)cyber.law.harvard.edu
just to play devil's advocate...
I often write programs in freepascal...
the freepascal is a program itself though, written in a language. (it can
compile itself, actually).
Some basic compilers I have used were written in C. GCC is written in
If you say that I can't copyright a language, do you mean an
implementation of that language, or the language itself. A particular
implementation of a language and thus should be copyrightable (and not
patentable.. grumble..). The specifications for the language shouldn't be
protected though, and I would think that even if they were, writing a
compatible language would fall under the DMCA's "interoperability" clause.
-- noah silva
On Mon, 24 Mar 2003 firstname.lastname@example.org wrote:
> On 23 Mar 2003 at 18:54, James S. Tyre wrote:
> Date sent: Sun, 23 Mar 2003 18:54:35 -0800
> To: email@example.com
> From: "James S. Tyre" <firstname.lastname@example.org>
> Subject: Re: [dvd-discuss]Lexmark Decision
> Send reply to: email@example.com
> > 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.
> But a programming language is not an idea or the expression of an idea but the
> means of expressing ideas. In mathematics the language of expressing ideas in
> analysis is totally different than the language of expressing ideas in abstract
> algebra. I can no more understand the works of a good friend of mine in
> Algebraic K-Theory than he can some of the work I have done in analysis. Our
> languages are different. (also our thought processes. He's teaching a course in
> cryptography at a very well known university. yet the scales of going from 2^56
> to 2^112 required a little thought. ). I would have to argue that the language
> for communication to people or to a machine cannot nor should it ever be
> allowed to be copyrighted or patented.
> > At 06:44 PM 3/23/2003 -0800, firstname.lastname@example.org 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:email@example.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