[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next][Date Index][Thread Index]
Re: [dvd-discuss] Bunner wins DeCSS trade secret appeal
- To: dvd-discuss(at)cyber.law.harvard.edu
- Subject: Re: [dvd-discuss] Bunner wins DeCSS trade secret appeal
- From: "Michael A Rolenz" <Michael.A.Rolenz(at)aero.org>
- Date: Thu, 1 Nov 2001 13:34:14 -0800
- Reply-To: dvd-discuss(at)cyber.law.harvard.edu
- Sender: owner-dvd-discuss(at)cyber.law.harvard.edu
<as I attempt to restrain my snickering>...Now lets consider this
As Jeme has pointed out <repeatedly!>, if the sting of "1"s and "O"s are
NOT expressing ideas, then they also CANNOT be copyrighted either,
seemingly this court agrees. Now...lets add a little more to this line of
argumentation. Take waht TWI just put forth down under- DVD are
"software". Obviously it's not source code but little "1"s and "Os"....So
TWI has just presented a legal argument that EVERYTHING they release on
DVD is not copyrighted. A good question is how the courts try to deal with
Bryan Taylor <firstname.lastname@example.org>
Sent by: email@example.com
11/01/01 01:19 PM
Please respond to dvd-discuss
Subject: Re: [dvd-discuss] Bunner wins DeCSS trade secret appeal
Hmmm.... It's not all good. It appears that the Court's reasoning is based
differentiation between source and object code. It based it's decision on
source code form of DeCSS:
If the source code were "compiled" to create object code, we would agree
the resulting composition of zeroes and ones would not convey ideas. (See
generally Junger v. Daley, supra, 209 F.3d at pp. 482-483.) That the
code is capable of such compilation, however, does not destroy the
nature of the source code itself.
Although, i have to ask, if the object code does not convey ideas, how can
result in the improper disclosure of the trade secret?
Do You Yahoo!?
Make a great connection at Yahoo! Personals.