At 2007-02-24 16:27:37 +0000, [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: > > > BTW, have you read Lexmark vs. Static Control? > > the copyright-infringement part of that suit related to a really tiny > program that had to operate in constrained circumstances (i believe 50 > bytes long or so).
Yes, a program on the toner cartridge that was loaded by the printer's firmware, which would apparently reject any such code unless it matched a checksum calculated over Lexmark's original code. So that literal code was the only way to achieve the function of talking to the printer, and and was held uncopyrightable. I mentioned it as an aside, because it's interesting, and because one of the rulings said something about fair use in software (I don't remember what, though :-). -- ams
