[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next][Date Index][Thread Index]
RE: [dvd-discuss] SCC, Lexmark, and copyright versusreverse-engineering
- To: dvd-discuss(at)cyber.law.harvard.edu
- Subject: RE: [dvd-discuss] SCC, Lexmark, and copyright versusreverse-engineering
- From: microlenz(at)earthlink.net
- Date: Wed, 02 Apr 2003 19:55:08 -0800
- In-reply-to: <A224678706957745ADBB113EC0A2392C0147EECB@postal.fcci-group.com>
- Reply-to: dvd-discuss(at)cyber.law.harvard.edu
- Sender: owner-dvd-discuss(at)cyber.law.harvard.edu
On 1 Apr 2003 at 11:00, Dean Sanchez wrote:
Subject: RE: [dvd-discuss] SCC, Lexmark, and copyright versusreverse-engineering
Date sent: Tue, 1 Apr 2003 11:00:09 -0500
From: "Dean Sanchez" <DSANCHEZ@fcci-group.com>
Send reply to: firstname.lastname@example.org
> I would argue that a government-granted monopoly (copyright) is not the
> capitalist system at work.
Yes but it is also the Devil's bargain that was seemingly better understood 200
yrs ago than by today's generations of so called legal scholars.
> I would be inclined to call a trade secret a
> capitalist competitive advantage because it doesn't require government
> intervention to maintain the monopoly.
But also faces the threat of someone REing it and doing it better (e.g., the PC
market. IBM is outta that one pretty much). Congress hasn't figured out that
protection is something that should be doled out only when there is a
compelling state interest....other than that...don't do it.
> -----Original Message-----
> From: John Zulauf [mailto:email@example.com]
> Sent: Tuesday, April 01, 2003 10:50 AM
> To: firstname.lastname@example.org
> Subject: Re: [dvd-discuss] SCC, Lexmark, and copyright
> email@example.com wrote:
> > <DA on>
> > And if Lexmark has made RE so much more difficult, then they are entitled to
> > their competitive advantage. That's the capitalist system at work.
> > <DA off>
> But isn't that *exactly* why we have copyright abuse and anti-trust?
> Let Lexmark contend that they are selling a software product with each
> printer cartridge.
> The use of copyright to defend rights and markets *outside* the market
> for the copyright work itself is copyright abuse. Also, the requirement
> to buy a copy of an copyrighted work in order to buy ink sounds like an
> illegal tying to me -- especially since it grants the ink seller a
> Out of the frying, into the fire.
> <cynical>If only the cooks weren't off on vacation.</cynical>