Categories:
Links:
The DeCSS case may have focused on us but it was about so much more. That's why we had to look at the bigger picture when making this decision. The MPAA and their cronies went out of their way to choose a defendant (us) that the court system would be prejudiced against. That's the one part of the case they got right. But what they didn't count on was the massive amount of support that came our way from all kinds of communities - support that continues to this day. In a way, the MPAA has brought a lot of us together. And that has made us stronger as a group. While it's tempting to think of this as a defeat, we must look at the good that has come out of it. People the world over know all about the DMCA and are committed to overturning it. The amount of education that has occurred in the last two and a half years is simply phenomenal. There are many other combatants now in the fight and we have never been more convinced that we will ultimately prevail.
The DeCSS case may have focused on us but it was about so much more. That's why we had to look at the bigger picture when making this decision. The MPAA and their cronies went out of their way to choose a defendant (us) that the court system would be prejudiced against. That's the one part of the case they got right. But what they didn't count on was the massive amount of support that came our way from all kinds of communities - support that continues to this day. In a way, the MPAA has brought a lot of us together. And that has made us stronger as a group.
While it's tempting to think of this as a defeat, we must look at the good that has come out of it. People the world over know all about the DMCA and are committed to overturning it. The amount of education that has occurred in the last two and a half years is simply phenomenal. There are many other combatants now in the fight and we have never been more convinced that we will ultimately prevail.
Reverse engineering has always been a lawful way to acquire trade secrets embodied in mass-marketed products. This longstanding principle on which software engineers as well as engineers in other fields so frequently rely could be significantly undermined depending on what happens in a case now pending before the California Supreme Court. The precedent set in this case could, in turn, influence courts in other jurisdictions. A key issue in the case one that legal scholars and intellectual property lawyers have debated for many years is whether an anti-reverse engineering clause in a mass-market license should be enforceable. The California case, DVD CCA v. Bunner, presents this issue squarely, although the litigants have thus far primarily focused on whether Bunner had a free speech right (or not) to post a computer program on the Internet that developed, in part, with aid of information derived from reverse engineering allegedly in violation of such a mass-market license. This column will explain why the California court should reaffirm the longstanding rule that reverse engineering is a lawful way to acquire trade secrets and should reject the premise that breach of a mass market license forbidding reverse engineering is an improper means to obtain a trade secret. The litigants emphasis on free speech issues has obscured the considerable weaknesses in the trade secret theory in this case.
Reverse engineering has always been a lawful way to acquire trade secrets embodied in mass-marketed products. This longstanding principle on which software engineers as well as engineers in other fields so frequently rely could be significantly undermined depending on what happens in a case now pending before the California Supreme Court. The precedent set in this case could, in turn, influence courts in other jurisdictions. A key issue in the case one that legal scholars and intellectual property lawyers have debated for many years is whether an anti-reverse engineering clause in a mass-market license should be enforceable.
The California case, DVD CCA v. Bunner, presents this issue squarely, although the litigants have thus far primarily focused on whether Bunner had a free speech right (or not) to post a computer program on the Internet that developed, in part, with aid of information derived from reverse engineering allegedly in violation of such a mass-market license. This column will explain why the California court should reaffirm the longstanding rule that reverse engineering is a lawful way to acquire trade secrets and should reject the premise that breach of a mass market license forbidding reverse engineering is an improper means to obtain a trade secret. The litigants emphasis on free speech issues has obscured the considerable weaknesses in the trade secret theory in this case.
Hollywood fixed the DVD market so films could only be played in the region they were purchased. But viewers got round it with "cheat codes" and now the system is on the verge of collapse.
The California Supreme Court seemed skeptical Thursday of arguments that an Indiana college student was immune from California law for posting computer code on the Web that unscrambles DVD encryption technology. At least three justices appeared to warm to arguments that Matthew Pavlovich -- a former Purdue University student and Web master -- knew code on his Web site divulged trade secrets and violated copyrights affecting the motion picture and high-tech industries in California. The case -- Pavlovich v. Superior Court, County of Santa Clara, S100809 -- is being closely watched because of the continuing uncertainty about state jurisdiction over the Internet. The court is grappling with whether California's long-arm statute can be applied when the Web is the medium for possible infringement. In Thursday's argument, Pavlovich's attorney Allonn Levy argued that the trade secrets and copyright holder, DVD Copy Control Association Inc., could not sue in California because his client passively posted information and did not have substantial contact with California or expressly aim to harm industry here.
The California Supreme Court seemed skeptical Thursday of arguments that an Indiana college student was immune from California law for posting computer code on the Web that unscrambles DVD encryption technology.
At least three justices appeared to warm to arguments that Matthew Pavlovich -- a former Purdue University student and Web master -- knew code on his Web site divulged trade secrets and violated copyrights affecting the motion picture and high-tech industries in California.
The case -- Pavlovich v. Superior Court, County of Santa Clara, S100809 -- is being closely watched because of the continuing uncertainty about state jurisdiction over the Internet. The court is grappling with whether California's long-arm statute can be applied when the Web is the medium for possible infringement.
In Thursday's argument, Pavlovich's attorney Allonn Levy argued that the trade secrets and copyright holder, DVD Copy Control Association Inc., could not sue in California because his client passively posted information and did not have substantial contact with California or expressly aim to harm industry here.
Digital IP Links Home | Search Links | New Links | Popular Links | Top Rated | Admin Login | Powered by ssLinks v1.22