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

RE: [dvd-discuss]Lexmark Decision

I think everyone is missing the bigger point.  That is that the "interoperability" clause, in actuality, is always going to be used as a hammer defending the DMCA.  Its existence pounds home the point that the DMCA is 'really' flexible and doesn't have anything wrong with it even though no one can actually use it without being prosecuted.  It's protecting us from the copyright thieves and pirates.  I think that we will see very few cases of interoperability that aren't trumped by the other terms of this act.

-----Original Message-----
From: Noah silva [mailto:nsilva@atari-source.com]
Sent: Tuesday, March 25, 2003 3:16 PM
To: dvd-discuss@eon.law.harvard.edu
Subject: Re: [dvd-discuss]Lexmark Decision

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
itself, etc.

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 microlenz@earthlink.net wrote:

> On 23 Mar 2003 at 18:54, James S. Tyre wrote:
> Date sent:      	Sun, 23 Mar 2003 18:54:35 -0800
> To:             	dvd-discuss@eon.law.harvard.edu
> From:           	"James S. Tyre" <jstyre@jstyre.com>
> Subject:        	Re: [dvd-discuss]Lexmark Decision
> Send reply to:  	dvd-discuss@eon.law.harvard.edu
> > 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, 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
> >