William Allen Simpson wrote:
> Ed Gerck wrote:
> >
> > William Allen Simpson wrote:
> > > (1) Microsoft _lost_ the Stac lawsuit.
> >
> > I never said otherwise -- and I was the first one to point out that
> > those guys that reverse engineered CyberPatrol's software
> > were not very much different from Microsoft, in what
> > Microsoft did to Stac (for fame, or money, who cares?
> > it is all profit). So, the reporter's argument that this was
> > an unexpected legal strategy by CB is not correct.
> >
> Speaking as an interested person stuck in the middle of the lawsuit,
> because I was writing the IETF PPP LZS specification, and having
> visited the Stac offices from time to time, and based on my
> recollection of discussions -- there is something terribly wrong
> with your analogy.
>
> Microsoft did not reverse engineer Stac. Microsoft stole Stac source
> without paying for it, by falsely representing that they were interested
> in licensing the software, then falsely representing that they developed
> their own compression technique.
I have heard this version, which seems to be slightly better to Microsoft
than the version I reflected above. Maybe you are right and Microsoft
did not do the two bad things, just one
> I've had the same happen to me --
> companies often want to see source before they license it -- only twice
> (so far) have they then later claimed to have developed it independently.
Only twice seems to be one too many.
> Microsoft claimed that Stac improperly reverse engineered Microsoft's code
> in discovering the fraud. Microsoft lost the argument, and the case.
Yes, there is no contention of that. But, the argument weighed against
Microsoft.
> Now, the usual disclaimer: IANAL. These are my interpretation, based on
> information, knowledge and belief.
>
> I'm curious, tho'. Where are you licensed to practice law?
In the US, amateur engineers are not allowed by law, but amateur
lawyers are. Accordingly, everyone is also expected to know the law --
not just lawyers, which of course does not apply to the more complex
art of engineering or physics. My qualifications are public, btw, if you
want to know just do an altavista search.
> > You may have your personal version of the decision, but in fact Microsoft
> > won the argument *at the time*,
>
> Well, I had/have my personal COPY of the decision.... I'll look around for
> it when I have nothing better to do.
>
> > that Stac should not have trespassed without
> > a legal warrant, and this decreased the compensation awarded to
> > Stac in the final balance.
> >
> I don't remember the phrase "trespassed without a legal warrant".
>
> I don't remember a reduction in compensation.
>
> Could you please cite the decision text?
Like you, I will look around when I have nothing better to do, but
you may look in Dr. Dobb's archives for an article at the time.
> > Interesting case law basis. But, ...
> > you will find in the Bern convention
> > that the use of copyrighted works can be legally restricted -- such
> > as prohibiting commercial use, copying (where an archival copy
> > may be allowed by law), and ... you guessed it ... decompilation
> > as a type of "copy".
> >
> Funny thing, I've never seen such a citation. Please provide it!
I will look around but you can check for copyright owner's right
in altavista meanwhile. As I said, everyone is expected to know
the law.
> Conveniently at hand, Sony v Connectix says:
>
> [9] With respect to the third statutory factor, amount and
> substantiality of the portion used in relation to the copyrighted
> work as a whole, Connectix disassembled parts of the Sony
> BIOS and copied the entire Sony BIOS multiple times. This
> factor therefore weighs against Connectix.
This is correct, according to what I know -- and, supports what I
have been saying. Note that the sentence affirms that the reverse
engineering and copying does "weigh against" Connectix. Now, let's read
about the *false* application of this (true) fact by Sony, which actually
depicts a quite diiferent problem than the one we have here between
CyberPatrol and the RE-patrol as well as between Microsoft and Stac:
> But as we con-
> cluded in Sega, in a case of intermediate infringement when
> the final product does not itself contain infringing material,
> this factor is of "very little weight."
Haha!! It says that this factor (ie, reverse engineering and copying)
is of little weight "when the final product does not itself contain infring
material" -- which I must repeat, for clarity, in direct logical
order and with the previous context..
It says, when the final product does not itself (ie, substantially,
measurably as a unit) contain infring material (ie, sections
of the copyrighted source code) then the *infringing* act of
reverse engineering and copying is of little weight. Which is
rather obvious as we think of it -- but.... guess what ... This
was NOT the case for Microsoft (yes, the final Microsof product
DoubleSpace DID in fact and in itself contain infringing material from
Stac, did it not?) and this was ALSO NOT the case in the current
RE-patrol disclosure (that DID in fact and in itself contain
infringing material from CyberPatrol, did it not?)
So, Sonny v Connectix is NOT your trump card in this thread,
as you seem to take it for. Quite to the contrary, I show above
that a logical reading of the decision both supports my arguments
as well as it denies what you have been assuming all along. I take it thus
as one of my trump cards, thank you, conveniently at hand as you might say.
Cheers,
Ed Gerck
