[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next][Date Index][Thread Index]
Re: [dvd-discuss]Lexmark Decision
- To: dvd-discuss(at)cyber.law.harvard.edu
- Subject: Re: [dvd-discuss]Lexmark Decision
- From: "James S. Tyre" <jstyre(at)jstyre.com>
- Date: Sun, 23 Mar 2003 18:54:35 -0800
- In-reply-to: <3E7E009A.10241.20C5ADB@localhost>
- References: <[email protected]><[email protected]>
- Reply-to: dvd-discuss(at)cyber.law.harvard.edu
- Sender: owner-dvd-discuss(at)cyber.law.harvard.edu
But the judge also said the LexMark wrote its own unique programming
language. I have no idea if that is correct, but if so, it is not an
insignificant fact.
At 06:44 PM 3/23/2003 -0800, [email protected] wrote:
>Having gone through some of the findings from the Eastern Kentucky court, the
>case has bizarre features. Lexmark copyrighted 37 and 55 byte programs.
>Lexmark has a copyright on the programs registered with the copyright office.
>SCC copied the program verbatim. The judge went to great pains to point out
>that SCC could have done all sorts of things to replicate the
>functionality and
>do the authentication sequence but did not. Where I think the judge erred is
>not in his reasoning but his application of the law. The DMCA is not involved
>at all. Given the validity of Lexmarks copyright, then this is merely a
>case of
>copyright infringement. The authentication is NOT an access control, using
>the
>judges own reasoning. So the DMCA really isn't involved. Now I have doubts
>that
>Lexmark's code is truly copyrightable. The judge made comments on how Lexmark
>made created choices regarding algorithms and the like. I don't see that a
>choice of algorithms is copyrightable nor that it is truly possible to be
>creative or original in 37 or 55 bytes.
--------------------------------------------------------------------
James S. Tyre mailto:[email protected]
Law Offices of James S. Tyre 310-839-4114/310-839-4602(fax)
10736 Jefferson Blvd., #512 Culver City, CA 90230-4969
Co-founder, The Censorware Project http://censorware.net