[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next][Date Index][Thread Index]

Re: [dvd-discuss]Lexmark Decision

I think it's very simple.  If lexmark is stating that another program
could work.. just have them prove it by supplying another program that
would work.  If it's really an expressive language, and the
"authentication" process can allow other programs, then surely there
must be hundreds of programs that will work ?

 -- noah silva

2003年03月27日(木)の18時09分に Michael A Rolenz 曰く:
> That seemed to be SCC's contention but The judge seemed to believe
> otherwise. Is there someway to get a transcript?
> BTW SCC has filed an anti-trust suit
> http://www.scc-inc.com/special/oemwarfare/pdf_lawsuit/Amended_Complaint.pdf
> Roy Murphy
> <murphy@panix.com>
> Sent by:
> owner-dvd-discuss@eon.law.harvard.edu
> 03/27/2003 01:57 PM
> Please respond to
> dvd-discuss
>         To:      
> dvd-discuss@eon.law.harvard.edu
>         cc:        
>         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.
noah silva <nsilva@atari-source.com>

Attachment: signature.asc
Description: This is a digitally signed message part