Here's Lance Rose's take on the Bernstein decision:
Elyn
Elyn Wollensky
Programming Development Group
IDG Technology Publishing
900 Third Avenue NYC, NY 10022
voice: +1.212.381.4517 fax: +1.212.381.4501
-----Original Message-----
From: Lance Rose [ mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]
<mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]> ]
Sent: Friday, May 07, 1999 8:58 AM
To: Elyn Wollensky
Cc: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Subject: Re: FW: Bernstein Opinion Up
Elyn -
Sorry to say, but the 9th Circuit took the dumb approach I mentioned in my
earlier post.
������� Their whole approach to "source code as speech" is misguided -
unless we are talking about
people talking to machines!� Source code is specifically designed and
constrained to make a computer operate in exactly specified ways.
������� While programmers and cryptographers may exchange source code to
understand each other's techniques, etc., this is like potters exchanging
pottery.� The discussion between people, like the discussion between
potters, is first amendment protectable, but this does not render the code
itself protected under 1st amendment.
������� The 9th circuit made the dumbest possible mistake - they neglected
to take account of context.� The context includes: the reference to
"language" as describing source code has nothing to do with
human-communicative speech, it's only a special purpose corruption adopted
especially for the computer industry; the fact that source code is
human-usable as opposed to object code does not imply that it's humans
talking to humans, but only that source code is the user controls level
of making computers work; and the fact that source code is expressed as text
is only a reflection of our own current limitations as humans, in that we
need symbolic reference systems to direct computer operations - the fact
that we reach for the easiest, broad purpose reference system that works,
originally derived from human language, does not turn our use of this tool
in computer programming into human-to-human speech (and in fact, there is a
broad movement to non-text speech, exemplified currently by visual
object-oriented programming, and represented in its ideal form by Jaron
Lanier's effort to create a non-symbol-mediated computer environment).
������� I'm all for protecting encryption stuff under the 1st amendment.�
But let's do it the right way, not the dumb way . . .
- Lance
At 03:54 PM 5/6/99 -0500, you wrote:
>Here's the URL for the Bernstein/crypto decision-
>Way cool. Looks like sanity is starting to kick back the rules of
>import-export decisions. That or everyone w/money in the IPO-internet
market
>are beginning to shake in their boots from Warren Buffett's announcement
>yesterday (re: the overpricing of the i-market & need for a correction).
>Whichever- it's all good :)
>
>
>-----Original Message-----
>From: John Young [ mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] <mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]> ]
>Sent: Thursday, May 06, 1999 3:29 PM
>To: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
>Subject: Bernstein Opinion Up
>
>
>Thanks to Cindy Cohn:
>
>�� http://jya.com/bernstein-9th.htm <http://jya.com/bernstein-9th.htm>
>
>Or from the 9th Court of Appeals:
>
>
http://www.ce9.uscourts.gov/web/newopinions.nsf/f606ac175e010d64882566eb0065
<http://www.ce9.uscourts.gov/web/newopinions.nsf/f606ac175e010d64882566eb006
5>
>8118/febd2452a8a4d79b8825676900685b71?OpenDocument
>
>
>
