[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: "Richard Hartman" <hartman(at)onetouch.com>
- Date: Tue, 25 Mar 2003 16:14:57 -0800
- Reply-to: dvd-discuss(at)cyber.law.harvard.edu
- Sender: owner-dvd-discuss(at)cyber.law.harvard.edu
- Thread-index: AcLzDGRrA9Jm9poBQ9qkr8VCBjDeeQAICJnQ
- Thread-topic: [dvd-discuss]Lexmark Decision
When you say "implementation of a language" you
are actually talking about the _compiler_ ... which
may be copyrightable under the current laws. However
if you are talking about copyrighting the _language_
you are talking about the syntax and the semantics
of the beast -- essentially an intangible. You might
be able to copyright a _manual_ describing the language,
but there would be nothing to stop me from writing my
own as long as it didn't lift your deathless prose ;-)
--
-Richard M. Hartman
hartman@onetouch.com
186,000 mi/sec: not just a good idea, it's the LAW!
> -----Original Message-----
> From: Noah silva [mailto:nsilva@atari-source.com]
> Sent: Tuesday, March 25, 2003 12:16 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
> > >
> >
> >
> >
>
>