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] >
