[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next][Date Index][Thread Index]
[dvd-discuss] Re: Lexmark Decision
- To: dvd-discuss(at)cyber.law.harvard.edu
- Subject: [dvd-discuss] Re: Lexmark Decision
- From: Seth Finkelstein <sethf(at)sethf.com>
- Date: Sun, 30 Mar 2003 06:05:17 -0500
- Reply-to: dvd-discuss(at)cyber.law.harvard.edu
- Sender: owner-dvd-discuss(at)cyber.law.harvard.edu
- User-agent: Mutt/1.4i
> The simple fact is that this particular monolithic block of bits is
> the only block of bits that will allow a cartridge to function on
> this printer.
Arguably, this isn't right. There are other blocks of bits
which will work. However, it is almost impossible for someone else to
*find* or *derive* those other blocks of bits, because that would
require knowing both Lexmark's language *and* program authentication
protocols.
Abstractly, Lexmark has done some sort of legal hat-trick -
leveraged trade-secret to copyright and then to the DMCA.
--
Seth Finkelstein Consulting Programmer sethf@sethf.com http://sethf.com
Anticensorware Investigations - http://sethf.com/anticensorware/
Seth Finkelstein's Infothought blog - http://sethf.com/infothought/blog/