[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next][Date Index][Thread Index]
RE: [dvd-discuss] Court Sides With Geac in Mainframe Software Cas e
- To: DVD-Discuss <dvd-discuss(at)cyber.law.harvard.edu>
- Subject: RE: [dvd-discuss] Court Sides With Geac in Mainframe Software Cas e
- From: "D. C. Sessions" <dcs(at)lumbercartel.com>
- Date: 16 Oct 2002 09:49:11 -0700
- In-reply-to: <[email protected]>
- References: <[email protected]>
- Reply-to: dvd-discuss(at)cyber.law.harvard.edu
- Sender: owner-dvd-discuss(at)cyber.law.harvard.edu
On Wed, 2002-10-16 at 09:36, Richard Hartman wrote:
> AFAICT the third-party did not modify code -- nor did
> they _have_ the code -- they modified the binary ...
> perhaps they could only do this because they had
> knowledge of the product from when the worked there
> ... but nonetheless, they didn't modify -- or view
> -- the code when they were working for the third-party.
Are we reading the same case?
As I read it, the add-on didn't modify the code
at all, just accessed it in novel ways.
--
| The race is not always to the swift, nor the battle to the strong. |
| Because the slow, feeble old codgers like me cheat. |
+--------------- D. C. Sessions <[email protected]> --------------+