William Allen Simpson wrote:
> -----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.
>
I am always amazed by the "hollier than thou" atitude
some folks have, when the only thing IMO we should be doing
in a public debate is to try to mine the gold of truth. If you
want to discuss fine, if you think that complaining helps, also
fine, but please reserve your value judgments for yourself.
My comments follow inlined and I thank any of you in the Cc
list and also you, William, for any comments that may have
provided for my better understanding of this issue's
intersubjectivity.
> (1) Microsoft _lost_ the Stac lawsuit.
I never said otherwise -- and I was the first one to point out that
those guys that reverse engineered CyberPatrol's software
were not very much different from Microsoft, in what
Microsoft did to Stac (for fame, or money, who cares?
it is all profit). So, the reporter's argument that this was
an unexpected legal strategy by CB is not correct.
> 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.
You may have your personal version of the decision, but in fact Microsoft
won the argument *at the time*, that Stac should not have trespassed without
a legal warrant, and this decreased the compensation awarded to
Stac in the final balance.
> It's no surprise that M$ supports UCITA.
That is another can of worms.
> (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).
Interesting case law basis. But, even though "copyright protection does
not extend to any idea, procedure, process, system, method
of operation, concept, principle, or discovery embodied in
the copyrighted work.)," you will find in the Bern convention
that the use of copyrighted works can be legally restricted -- such
as prohibiting commercial use, copying (where an archival copy
may be allowed by law), and ... you guessed it ... decompilation
as a type of "copy".
>
>
> 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....
When you do not understand something, pls ask.
The implict clause in my phrase is -- "The case of
CB's RE [by Skala and Jansson] is closer to the
second, IMO."
>
> > 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.
Not the kind I mentioned. I see you are not familiar with
the subject, which makes me feel safer somehow ;-))
> 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.
Yes, this was IMO another low point in Science -- bu tnot the
first (nor, certainly, the last) in history. With this note of
agreement, may I end this thread? If you have further
comments, please email me privately.
Cheers,
Ed Gerck
