| Author |
Message |
adam
Member
Joined: 13 Sep 2000
Location: United States
|
|
I don't know where you are going with this trhouse. Yes lawsuits drag out, that doesn't mean you can't evaluate their merits now.
Nothwithstanding the fact that a judge can rule either way or that Macrovision's patents could be invalidated based on some facts that we know nothing about, based on almost identical precidence it is extremely likely that a court will grant a preliminary injuction against Interburn for its DMCA violations and that they will lose their case if they pursue it.
I bet the Sima case will drag out. Who knows what will happen and when.
But you also have to be realistic too. You can't defend Sima by saying that "laws can change." That doesn't help them. Also fighing FEDERAL legislation on constitutional grounds? You know how often that works? Besides it is literally impossible for the DMCA to violate Fair Use because Fair Use is included in its safe harbour provisions. It completely defers to all Fair Uses.
|
|
red lion
Member
Joined: 13 Mar 2002
|
|
| adam wrote: |
| CaptainVideo wrote: |
| But some DVD's do not contain Macrovision or any copy protection at all. So I would argue that if there are DVD's on the market that don't use Macrovision or any copy protection, the Sima device wouldn't be violating the DMCA if they are used with those DVD"s. |
You can have as many valid uses for something as you want, if it violates a law it violates a law. You can find valid uses for anything. That is not the test applied under any law. |
So if we go this way then a computer can violate the law by copying DVD,s are dell etc next to be sued and how far do we go (ie there are many products that can violate a law including dvd writers)
btw this post is very very interesting because usually you have people who post but dont really know how the law works and i include myself in this. But it looks to me like ADAM knows his stuff although i knew that before..
|
|
adam
Member
Joined: 13 Sep 2000
Location: United States
|
|
| trhouse wrote: |
[edit]
P.S. Cars have a lawful use but they are used as the getaway vehicle in bank robberies and other crimes. The unlawful use fries the person or persons who used it illegally not the manufacturer. I would agree that the manufacturer is culpable if for example, Ford advertised the Explorer as great for large scale heists due to it cargo capacity. |
Please re-read my post again, I already had to explain this to another poster. I never said something was illegal because it had an unlawful purpose. I said if something was illegal, meaning that it is illegal per se, then a lawful or valid purpose doesn't negate this.
Everything has both legal and illegal purposes. That is why laws criminalizing something give us an actual standard to apply.
If Sigma's devices fail this standard it doesn't matter if they have other lawful uses as well.
Last edited by adam on Jun 17, 2005 17:59, edited 1 time in total
|
|
trhouse
Member
Joined: 28 Aug 2003
|
|
The point I am trying to make is that what may seem clear to you and I may not be if plaintiff and defendant choose to pursue it. Was the Sony case not about the courts interpretation of "fair use"? Apparently it was interpreted many ways or it would not have gone three rounds and it would not have been a close 5-4 decision.
Is not "fair use" part of the Federal law regarding copyrights?
"This right is subject to certain limitations found in sections 107 through 118 of the copyright act (title 17, U.S. Code). One of the more important limitations is the doctrine of “fair use.” "
But it required the Supreme Court to decide what it meant.
[edit]
Ok on your above comment.
|
|
adam
Member
Joined: 13 Sep 2000
Location: United States
|
|
In regards to Interburn it does seem clear to me, and I do not think there is much room for argument on their part. The same judge that granted the injuction against 321 Studios dismissed the Fair Use argument. This same judge will most likely be the one hearing this case.
I took these things into consideration and gave my opinion as to what I think will happen with them. I never suggested that others weren't free to form their own opinions.
|
|
trhouse
Member
Joined: 28 Aug 2003
|
|
That is fair enough. I only meant to show that there were other possibilities as to the outcome. Our patent attorneys warned us about the limitations of protection as well as some of the methods that have been used to thwart those protections. It was quite interesting. They also mentioned that the vast majority of patents and copyrights are not accorded much attention.
|
|
painkiller
Member
Joined: 15 Aug 2002
Location: Planet? What Planet?
|
|
The reference that Adam makes concerning the (same) judge) being involved here is the most telling.
The company pursuing the notion of "shutting down" outfits responsible for SIMA, et al, have finally found a 'friendly' court. [for their side]
Only (repeated?) appeals to (higher) courts and different judges may result in changing the earlier results.
And I stress that word, may.
And that takes time, effort and money.
_________________
Whatever doesn't kill me, merely ticks me off. (Never again a Sony consumer.)
|
|
trhouse
Member
Joined: 28 Aug 2003
|
|
Yes, you are not alone in those sentiments,
|
|
trhouse
Member
Joined: 28 Aug 2003
|
|
And Sima's response,
|
|
BJ_M
Patron
Joined: 30 Jul 2002
Location: Canada
|
|
sounds like macrovison jumped the gun w/ their press release ..
scare tactic ?
_________________
"Each problem that I solved became a rule which served afterwards to solve other problems." - Rene Descartes (1596-1650)
|
|
painkiller
Member
Joined: 15 Aug 2002
Location: Planet? What Planet?
|
|
Scare Tactic?
I doubt it.
These days, it becomes just an out-and-out threat. Just try proving it.
Remember, until it's proven - you can only say "alleged."
_________________
Whatever doesn't kill me, merely ticks me off. (Never again a Sony consumer.)
|
|
|
|
