Hyman Rosen wrote: > > On 3/24/2010 9:31 AM, Alexander Terekhov wrote: > > Yes, and? > > <http://gozips.uakron.edu/~dratler/2009copyright/materials/lexmark.htm> > Because the district court initially looked at these issues and > this evidence through the wrong frame of reference, its conclusion > that the Toner Loading Program had sufficient originality to obtain > copyright protection does not support the preliminary injunction. > At the permanent injunction stage of this dispute, we leave it to > the district court in the first instance to decide whether the Toner > Loading Program has sufficient originality to warrant copyright > protection.
http://www.mwe.com/index.cfm/fuseaction/publications.nldetail/object_id/e9bc6a89-03dc-4e37-9dba-d3d324d6a94c.cfm "Court Rejects Copyright Protection for Computer Program Found Lacking Originality By Paul E. Poirot A recent decision from the United States District Court for the Eastern District of Kentucky provides important guidance about the amount of creativity required to support copyright in a computer program and the nature of fair use in the context of interoperability. The court held that certain Lexmark software programs were not protected by copyright and that the use of those programs to achieve interoperability between devices was a protected fair use. Static Control Components, Inc. et al v. Lexmark International Inc., Case No. 5:04-cv-00084-GFVT (E. D. Ky., Apr. 18, 2007) (Van Tatenhove, J.). Lexmark obtained copyrights on small programs that were used to measure toner in certain Lexmark printer cartridges. The binary code of these programs served as a lock-out code for the intended printers (i.e., if the printer could not read the specific combination of binary numbers from the inserted printer cartridge, the printer would not function). When Static Control reverse-engineered the binary code to achieve interoperability between remanufactured cartridges and Lexmark printers, it unwittingly copied verbatim the executable aspects of the programs. Lexmark sued claiming copyright infringement. Static Control maintained that the programs embodied no creative expression and therefore, could not be protected by copyright. Lexmark argued that its programs were sufficiently creative because it had made a series of design choices when writing the programs. Static Control contended, however, that the mere existence of alternatives cannot endow the Lexmark code with originality it otherwise did not possess. The court determined that the programs did not have sufficient originality to warrant copyright protection. The district court observed that whether functional alternatives exist in the abstract is not the issue; rather, the issue is whether the programmers actually expressed sufficient originality when creating the programs. The court held that the Lexmark programmers did not. " http://www.internetlibrary.com/pdf/static-control-lexmark-d-ken.pdf (Case 5:04-cv-00084-GFVT Document 975) "Analysis SCC makes two chief arguments regarding its assertion that it cannot be liable for copyright infringement regarding the TLPs. First, SCC avers that the TLPs lack the requisite originality necessary to be copyrightable. The Sixth Circuits opinion combined with the Courts consideration of Lexmarks current arguments lead the Court to find that Lexmarks TLPs are not copyrightable. In the alternative, if the TLPs are copyrightable, then SCC argues that copying those programs as part of SCCs SMARTEK chip is fair use pursuant to 17 U.S.C. § 107. Guided by the Sixth Circuits opinion, the Court agrees that SCCs copying of Lexmarks TLPs in this case was fair use, assuming arguendo the TLPs copyrightability. [...] Both parties current positions are based on evidence known to and appraised by the Sixth Circuit in 2004. The Court finds no new evidence that would tend to materially undermine the Sixth Circuits application of facts to the law, and accordingly that appellate decision controls. As such, the originalityoriginality being a term-of-art under copyright lawof Lexmarks TLPs is insufficient for the programs to be copyrightable. " regards, alexander. P.S. "I'm insufficiently motivated to go set up a GNU/Linux system so that I can do the builds." Hyman Rosen <hyro...@mail.com> The Silliest GPL 'Advocate' P.P.S. "Of course correlation implies causation! Without this fundamental principle, no science would ever make any progress." Hyman Rosen <hyro...@mail.com> The Silliest GPL 'Advocate' -- http://gng.z505.com/index.htm (GNG is a derecursive recursive derecursion which pwns GNU since it can be infinitely looped as GNGNGNGNG...NGNGNG... and can be said backwards too, whereas GNU cannot.) _______________________________________________ gnu-misc-discuss mailing list gnu-misc-discuss@gnu.org http://lists.gnu.org/mailman/listinfo/gnu-misc-discuss
