Re: [dvd-discuss] SCC, Lexmark, and copyright versusreverse-engineering

[microlenz(at)earthlink.net]

On 1 Apr 2003 at 8:49, John Zulauf wrote:

Date sent:      	Tue, 01 Apr 2003 08:49:35 -0700
From:           	"John Zulauf" <johnzu@ia.nsc.com>
To:             	dvd-discuss@eon.law.harvard.edu
Subject:        	Re: [dvd-discuss] SCC, Lexmark, and copyright
	versusreverse-engineering
Send reply to:  	dvd-discuss@eon.law.harvard.edu

> 
> 
> microlenz@earthlink.net wrote:
> 
> > <DA on>
> >  And if Lexmark has made RE so much more difficult, then they are entitled to
> > their competitive advantage. That's the capitalist system at work.
> > <DA off>
> 
> But isn't that *exactly* why we have copyright abuse and anti-trust? 
> Let Lexmark contend that they are selling a software product with each
> printer cartridge. 
> 
> The use of copyright to defend rights and markets *outside* the market
> for the copyright work itself is copyright abuse.  Also, the requirement
> to buy a copy of an copyrighted work in order to buy ink sounds like an
> illegal tying to me -- especially since it grants the ink seller a
> monopoly.  

Note the <DA > above. Agreed. The distinction has gotten so blurred between 
patent, copyright, and trademark that the original purposes of each has gotten 
lost in this morass of legalism and "comparative advantage". The problem with 
the case here is that Lexmark has a prima facie case. SCC hasn't demonstrated 
that there is no alternative and therefore it IS abuse. I have no doubt that it 
IS but SCC undermined their position by copying, although I think Lexmark 
secured copyright was more another round in this game showing that Lexmark is 
contemtuous of the whole process.

> 
> Out of the frying, into the fire.
> 
> <cynical>If only the cooks weren't off on vacation.</cynical>

Even so...give me one chef who is not a dandified cook!

> 
> .002
>