On Mon, Jun 11, 2012 at 8:10 PM, Rick Moen <r...@linuxmafia.com> wrote: > Quoting Chris Travers (ch...@metatrontech.com): > >> Can you name a single case where a US court has said that if literal >> copying of code is required for interoperability of practical software >> or other practical tools (printer cartridges, garage door openers, >> etc), that this gives the copyright owner control over the markets for >> add-on products? > > Can you name a single reason why this utterly bizarre question has any > connection whatsover to anything I've said? It doesn't.
Yes I can. And I can tell you why it's not so bizarre. When you look at cases like Atari v. Nintendo, or Midway v. Arctic, these cases involve works of entertainment. When we look at cases like Galoob v. Nintendo, Lexmark v. SCC, Sony v. Connectix, and Oracle v. Google, these cases are about practical tools. There is a huge statutory difference between these two types of cases: The latter implicate 17 USC 102(b) while the former do not. In other words there are no issues in 17 USC 102(b) with classifying The Wind Done Gone as an unathorized derivative work of Gone with the Wind, but there are when classifying literal copies of printer cartridge authentication software as copyright infringement even where the copying is both unauthorized and literal. That section prevents copyright from being used to enforce things that are at the core of patent law, including practical techniques and tools. Now, here's how I read the latter line of cases and I want you to go and tell me why you think I am misreading them. Galoob was about whether Midway v. Actic prevented a vendor from making a product that, among other things skipping levels in a game. The court approached the program in question (Game Genie) as being the functional equivalent of a VCR being used to fast forward through scenes of a movie. To the extent that a new audiovisual work was produced (ala Midway) this was considered to be fair use, just as the copyright owner can't say that when you fast forward through part of a movie you are creating an unauthorized derivative work (drawing heavily I think on Betamax and other related precedents). Lexmark involved the case of Static Control copying Lexmark's copyrighted works verbatim and including them with their printer cartridges. The court first held that 17 USC 102(b) applied to areas functionally required for these aftermarket parts, and then concluded that after copying required for interop was removed from the equation, it didn't reach de minimis levels required for infringement. In other words, Lexmark couldn't make their printers dependent on software in the cartridge and then use this to control after market purchases of printer cartridges. This is probably the most similar to the linking issue and the GPL. In Sony, Connectix was making a software emulator for a Sony game console. They tried a bunch of ways to reverse engineer the firmware and eventually resorted to copying it, reverse compiling it, and then having a another team write compatible firmware. Sony sued alleging copyright infringement and the court held that copying was done only to accomplish goals protected by 17 USC 102(b) and therefore it was fair use. Similar to Sony, Oracle involved a case where Google was making a clone of Oracle's software. The court held that copying API definitions was protected to the extent it was necessary to accomplish goals protected in 17 USC 102(b). The fact that the API definitions must be reproduced exactly in order to be functionally compatible means they cannot be given copyright protection regardless of the level of literal copying going on. So there's my understanding. I have given you some case law I have read and why I understand it to be the way it is. That is quite frankly more than you have done. These aren't new issues, and it surprises me that people ignore that section of US law when it comes to questions of what the GPL requires. Again my understanding is that 17 USC 102(b) only applies to works which are practical rather than entertaining, and it protects the right to copy whatever you reasonably have to in order to achieve interoperability. I was just wondering if you had any cases which suggested a contrary understanding. Best Wishes, Chris Travers _______________________________________________ License-discuss mailing list License-discuss@opensource.org http://projects.opensource.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/license-discuss