Re: [dvd-discuss]Lexmark Decision

[Roy Murphy <murphy(at)panix.com>]

Michael Rolenz wrote:

> I haven't finished all the legalese but it seems that SSC may have 
> duplicated Lexmarks program but the way the program seems to have been 
> used in the authentication was not FUNCTIONAL but more like a giant 
> key. comparable to me using a Tom clancy quotation as a key. The words 
> are copyrighted but I'm not using them in AS copyright material merely 
> a key. The court only references the expert witnesses and it's not 
> clear that the judge got it all right.
>
> This makes interesting reading and worth some thought and analysis. Is 
> there anyway to get the transcript of the case? The electronic filings 
> doesn't seem to be online at their website 

 From my reading of the filings, it seems that the toner program 
contained in the cartridges was both a key and a functional program. The 
program was read off the cartridge and then checked for authenticity. 
Perhaps something such as an MD5sum or a otherr hash was used. Then, if 
the program was authenticated, it was executed in some program context. 
I think it is factually incorrect that some other program could have 
been substituted for the one in the cartridge. It would have had a 
different signature and would not have been executed.

 From the point of view of Copyright Law, I'd say that the merger 
doctrine -- the merger of fact and expression, makes the copyright on 
the toner program unenforcable.