That puzzled me too. I wish one could get copies of the transcript or their code. It's also a problematic one. Can one copyright or patent a language? What unique aspects of it would be copyrightable? The statements "x=x+1" or "x++" are old ones. A language that used either could not claim protection for those statements. If the language is very high level, then one would be asking for protection for a sequence of fairly obvious operations which one could argue do not require any originality or creativity. Take a look at
Begin
Download Program
Check Program
If Program is OK, then
run printer
else
stop printer
flash front panel light
Endif
End
BTW - this exceeds 55 bytes I think even without the blank lines.
If LExmark is copyrighting a language, then how can one write an alternative code to make the printer work, if the language it must be expressed in is copyrighted?
"James S. Tyre" <jstyre@jstyre.com> Sent by: owner-dvd-discuss@eon.law.harvard.edu
03/23/2003 06:54 PM
Please respond to dvd-discuss
To: dvd-discuss@eon.law.harvard.edu
cc:
Subject: Re: [dvd-discuss]Lexmark Decision
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, microlenz@earthlink.net 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:jstyre@jstyre.com
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