Roy Murphy <firstname.lastname@example.org> Sent by: email@example.com
03/27/2003 01:57 PM
Please respond to dvd-discuss
Subject: Re: [dvd-discuss]Lexmark Decision
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.