-----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-----
I had thought this thread died out some time ago, and Perry isn't copying
to the cryptography list anymore, but I cannot let this latest message bye
without a refutation. Folks should do their research before spouting off.
(1) Microsoft _lost_ the Stac lawsuit. It was shown that Microsoft had
directly copied the Stac algorithm, and may have included Stac source code
in its product. Microsoft _lost_ the argument that Stac reverse engineering
the boot sequence to install the Stac compression (and thereby discovering
that M$ was stealing patented work) was a violation of the shrink wrap
license. It's no surprise that M$ supports UCITA.
Stac was awarded a major judgment. Microsoft ended up buying Stac
($200,000,000 of stock as I remember), instead.
(2) Sony _lost_ the Connectix lawsuit on appeal (just recently). Sony
_lost_ the argument that Connectix reverse engineering the entire
playstation was a violation of the shrink wrap license. Go see (it's
on-line at <http://www.ce9.uscourts.gov/>):
U.S. Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit
Case Name:
SONY V CONNECTIX
Case Number: Date Filed:
99-15852 02/10/00
Copyrighted software ordinarily contains both copyrighted
and unprotected or functional elements. Sega Enters. Ltd. v.
Accolade, Inc., 977 F.2d 1510, 1520 (9th Cir. 1993) (amended
opinion); see 17 U.S.C. S 102(b) (Copyright protection does
not extend to any "idea, procedure, process, system, method
of operation, concept, principle, or discovery" embodied in
the copyrighted work.). Software engineers designing a prod-
uct that must be compatible with a copyrighted product fre-
quently must "reverse engineer" the copyrighted product to
gain access to the functional elements of the copyrighted
product. See Andrew Johnson-Laird, Software Reverse Engi-
neering in the Real World, 19 U. Dayton L. Rev. 843, 845-46
(1994).
Ed Gerck wrote:
> Take apart what I own is one thing -- publishing the results of taking
> it apart for a profit (fame or money) is another. The case of CB's RE
> is closer to the second, IMO.
>
CB's RE?
Well, Ed, it's a good thing we don't depend on you for legal advice....
- From the Sony decision:
10 Sony points to Micro Star v. Formgen, Inc., 154 F.3d 1107 (9th Cir.
1998), for the proposition that commercial use creates a presumption of
unfairness. See id. at 1113 (quoting Sony Corp. of Am. v. Universal City
Studios, Inc., 464 U.S. 417, 451 (1984)). We do not read Micro Star that
way; moreover, such a reading would be contrary to Acuff-Rose. Acuff-
Rose expressly rejected such a "hard evidentiary presumption" and stated
that the Court of Appeals "erred" by giving such dispositive weight to the
commercial nature of the use. 510 U.S. at 584.
> As to the counter-example you ask, the general public profits by
> lack of disclosure of the algorithm that allows nuclear bombs
> to be made with 1 pound of enriched uranium. We have less
> nuclear powers.
>
Publication of "how to" build a nuclear weapon is protected in the US.
Anybody can learn by going to a US library, or (I'm told) reading it
on the 'net.
However, the case in point is closer to the original publication of
public-key cryptography, which the US government tried to suppress,
even going to the point of confiscating the original journal article
as a violation of ITAR.
The USG lost, based on a higher authority than mere statute: the US
Constitution.
The public profits from publication. Always!
-----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE-----
Version: PGP 6.5.1
iQCVAwUBONqUUtm/qMj6R+sxAQHQNwP+N0D11fq0xBGNV5rLsmsIh6PZ/ifFpnPU
xcaXvIaxDz8tDOW3iVsSmpSQZbdxahh2yjkEBYCN/nVvwFblfkK7/3gUgg8ly46b
2nZDy1G3LUExUKS/ehYuoWKA6OuCcnPTkiEg4bq9PFzVcuJSi7wmU9sNizQcngcA
IIkCTpm9RS8=
=RGrp
-----END PGP SIGNATURE-----
