Re: [dvd-discuss]Lexmark Decision

[microlenz(at)earthlink.net]

On 29 Mar 2003 at 11:34, noah silva wrote:

Subject:        	Re: [dvd-discuss]Lexmark Decision
From:           	noah silva <nsilva@atari-source.com>
To:             	dvd-discuss@eon.law.harvard.edu
Organization:   	atari-source.com
Date sent:      	29 Mar 2003 11:34:58 -0500
Send reply to:  	dvd-discuss@eon.law.harvard.edu

> 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 ?

Actually SCC should have done this. Lexmark doesn't have to prove that they 
have a valid copyright. It is up to SCC to prove otherwise...althought if the 
copyright office is going to act as unpaid stooge, then something needs to be 
done about that as well. 

> 
>  -- noah silva
> 
> 2003 $BG/ (B03 $B7n (B27 $BF| (B( $BLZ (B) $B$N (B18 $B;~ (B09 $BJ,$K (B Michael
> A Rolenz  $B[)$/ (B: > 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> atari-source.com
>