[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: microlenz(at)earthlink.net
- Date: Tue, 25 Mar 2003 20:07:43 -0800
- In-reply-to: <A224678706957745ADBB113EC0A2392C137E44@postal.fcci-group.com>
- Reply-to: dvd-discuss(at)cyber.law.harvard.edu
- Sender: owner-dvd-discuss(at)cyber.law.harvard.edu
On 25 Mar 2003 at 17:00, Dean Sanchez wrote:
Subject: RE: [dvd-discuss]Lexmark Decision
Date sent: Tue, 25 Mar 2003 17:00:47 -0500
From: "Dean Sanchez" <DSANCHEZ@fcci-group.com>
Send reply to: firstname.lastname@example.org
> 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.
Can one have a right with no opportunity to exercise it?
>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:email@example.com]
> Sent: Tuesday, March 25, 2003 3:16 PM
> To: firstname.lastname@example.org
> 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 email@example.com wrote:
> > On 23 Mar 2003 at 18:54, James S. Tyre wrote:
> > Date sent: Sun, 23 Mar 2003 18:54:35 -0800
> > To: firstname.lastname@example.org
> > From: "James S. Tyre" <email@example.com>
> > Subject: Re: [dvd-discuss]Lexmark Decision
> > Send reply to: firstname.lastname@example.org
> > > 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, email@example.com 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:firstname.lastname@example.org
> > > 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
> > >