[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: Bryan Taylor <bryan_w_taylor(at)yahoo.com>
- Date: Mon, 5 Nov 2001 15:58:58 -0800 (PST)
- In-Reply-To: <OF7C5CE3D4.C94E744F-ON88256AFB.0074D0D9@aero.org>
- Reply-To: dvd-discuss(at)cyber.law.harvard.edu
- Sender: owner-dvd-discuss(at)cyber.law.harvard.edu
--- Michael A Rolenz <Michael.A.Rolenz@aero.org> wrote:
> If the source code were "compiled" to create object code, we would agree
> that 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
> source code is capable of such compilation, however, does not destroy the
> expressive nature of the source code itself.
> The court has drawn a line in the sand....a few inches from a cliff...but
> a line in the sand nevertheless!
I think it's important to realize that the quotation above is really just dicta
as far as the legal status of object code is concerned -- that wasn't before
the court. As far as I know, it also wasn't before the court in Junger v.
Daley, so we have dicta citing dicta. Not good.
It was before Kaplan who called it a "continuum" from one to the other after
hearing extensive expert testimony on the speech content.
The true value of this quote is that it says that the capability of compilation
into an executable does not impair the exressiveness that qualifies source code
for speech protection.
Do You Yahoo!?
Find a job, post your resume.