[Patents] US court says publishing DeCSS is legal

[cphil@cphil.net (Philippe Coulonges)]

Le Vendredi  2 Novembre 2001 14:01, vous avez écrit :
> I suspect the case will be overturned.  The judges in the case were
> ignorant of many software engineering concepts, which renders their
> decision suspect.

FREE SPEECH VS. INTELLECTUAL PROPERTY RIGHTS

So what. What is needed then is another audience, with judges competent in 
software engineering concepts.

> For example, they stated that their are no ideas disclosed in object
> code, which distinguishes object code from source code as speech.
> This is false.  There are entire conferences on reverse engineering
> object code and binary code into source code and system architectures
> - IEEE has an annual conference just on such tools.

FREE SPEECH VS. INTELLECTUAL PROPERTY RIGHTS

That decision was right, there are no ideas disclosed in object codes. Source 
codes are ideas and as such can't be patented and can't be restricted from 
researches. Let us contribute in order to fund our best advocates to defend 
that point of view.

> If they got this wrong (due to the court's lack of interest in getting
> its law clerks to investigate software engineering when ruling on
> software cases), who knows what else is wrong in their assumptions.

FREE SPEECH VS. INTELLECTUAL PROPERTY RIGHTS

Something may be wrong, let us discuss it with the best property rights 
advocates, and please in front of the most widespread and most competent 
audience. To get the most honest and most conscious judgement.

If it was possible, I would really like to spread the audience to the whole 
world, to anyone who cares and can get his hands on a computer.

And I really would like everypeer on this earth to get that end.

CU
CPHIL
-- 
Something may be wrong, let us discuss it, and please in front of the most 
widespread and most competent audience.
        -- Most of my life
Get lost
        -- Rest of my life