Robert,
Keep in mind that case is in appeal, and is quite likely to wind up in the
Supreme Court. It is, in every way I can imagine, a Constitutional case,
and has every reason to be heard by the Supreme Court. I hope the Supreme
Court Justices agree...
Regards,
Alex.
---
PGP/GPG Fingerprint:
EFD1 AC6C 7ED5 E453 C367 AC7A B474 16E0 758D 7ED9
-----BEGIN GEEK CODE BLOCK-----
Version: 3.12
GCS/CM>CC/IT d- s:+ a16 C++(++++)>$ UL++++>$ P--- L++>++$ E+ W+(-) N+ o? K? w---()
!O !M !V PS+(++)>+ PE-(--) Y+>+ PGP t+>++ !5 X-- R>++ tv(+) b+(++) DI(+) D++
G>+++ e--> h! !r y>+++
------END GEEK CODE BLOCK------
On Thu, 2 Nov 2000, Robert Varga wrote:
>
>
> On Wed, 1 Nov 2000, Patrick Maheral wrote:
>
> > On Wed, 1 Nov 2000, Alexander Hvostov wrote:
> > > Penguin,
> > >
> > > Because the patents and IP on your radio expired a long time ago. The ones
> > > on the algorithms haven't. :)
> > >
> > > Regards,
> >
> > Isn't there a provision in American (or Canadian) law that allows reverse
> > engineering (not disassembling code) for interoperability purposes?
> >
> > Patrick
>
> In the DeCSS (2600.org vs. MPAA) lawsuit this law did not protect the
> author of DeCSS and 2600.org from losing the suit, no matter that they
> tried to defend referring on this law.
>
> Regards,
>
> Robert Varga
>
>
> --
> To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to [EMAIL PROTECTED]
> with a subject of "unsubscribe". Trouble? Contact [EMAIL PROTECTED]
>
--
To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to [EMAIL PROTECTED]
with a subject of "unsubscribe". Trouble? Contact [EMAIL PROTECTED]
