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'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.
Microsoft claimed that Stac improperly reverse engineered Microsoft's code
in discovering the fraud. Microsoft lost the argument, and the case.
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?
> 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?
> 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!
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. 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." Sega, 977 F.2d at 1526-
27; see also Sony Corp. of Am. v. Universal City Studios, Inc.,
464 U.S. 417, 449-50 (1984) (copying of entire work does not
preclude fair use).
[12] Finally, we must weigh the extent of any transforma-
tion in Connectix's Virtual Game Station against the signifi-
cance of other factors, including commercialism, that militate
against fair use. See Acuff-Rose, 510 U.S. at 579. Connectix's
commercial use of the copyrighted material was an intermedi-
ate one, and thus was only "indirect or derivative." Sega, 977
F.2d at 1522. Moreover, Connectix reverse-engineered the
Sony BIOS to produce a product that would be compatible
with games designed for the Sony PlayStation. We have rec-
ognized this purpose as a legitimate one under the first factor
of the fair use analysis. See id. Upon weighing these factors,
we find that the first factor favors Connectix.
