Re: [dvd-discuss]Lexmark Decision

[microlenz(at)earthlink.net]

On 25 Mar 2003 at 15:15, Noah silva wrote:

Date sent:      	Tue, 25 Mar 2003 15:15:41 -0500 (EST)
From:           	Noah silva <nsilva@atari-source.com>
To:             	dvd-discuss@eon.law.harvard.edu
Subject:        	Re: [dvd-discuss]Lexmark Decision
Send reply to:  	dvd-discuss@eon.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
> itself, etc.
> 
> If you say that I can't copyright a language, do you mean an
> implementation of that language, or the language itself. >


"can't copyright a language"...as for the implementation of it..SOME aspects of 
the interpreter or compiler may be copyrightable but what ones? Does the part 
that uses a well known algorithm published in the 1960s and recoded many times 
since to thepoint that probably 100000 people in the world recreated it in 
freshman programming? Or does including a NETLIB or GNU code  routine do it?(OK 
forget the license...someone can transform the code enough to keep everyone 
guessing in the courtroom)

> A particular
> implementation of a language and thus should be copyrightable (and not
> patentable.. grumble..). 

How it it an invention? It's more a translation.

> 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.
> 

Only the written part of that. Someone had to take some care in writing 
it...although as a mathematician, the more precise something is written the 
less creativity it has and so the most precise descriptions cannot be 
copyrighted even though they take themost time to create.
>   -- 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
> > > 
> > 
> > 
> > 
>