Re: [Cdn-DMCA] Dolby letter to Netbsd.ORG re: "ac3dec"

From: aland _-at-_ striker.ottawa.on.ca
To: No DMCA in Canada <canada-dmca-opponents (at) flora.org>
Date: Sun, 08 Aug 1999 10:48:58 -0400

Russell McOrmond <russell@flora.ca> wrote:
>   Is there any response from the NetBSD folks other than the posting of
> these scans?

  I imagine they're checking with their lawyers.


  For people worried about evil lawyer letters like this, I suggest
looking at:

http://www.cs.cmu.edu/~dst/DeCSS/Gallery/mpaa-threat-feb2001.txt

http://www.cs.cmu.edu/~dst/DeCSS/Gallery/mpaa-reply-feb2001.html

http://www.cs.cmu.edu/~dst/DeCSS/Gallery/mpaa-ack-mar2001.txt


  In summary, unless the lawyers allege that you've violated specific,
named, laws; then the letter is nothing more than a threat.

  My reading of the letter to the NetBSD folks is that they *do*
allege patent or trademark infringement.


  But the first paragraph about 'requiring a license agreement' is a
crock.  Their argument about 'intellectual property' is a crock.

  Note that the letter does NOT allege that the project has stolen
Dolby's intellectual property.  They just want you to think that.  The
truth is that unless protected by patents, copyrights, or NDA's,
intellectual property doesn't exist.


  So my response would be:

- Is the ac3dec code a reproduction of Dolby's licensed code?

- Is the ac3dec name infringing on Dolby's trademark for AC-3?

- Is the algorithm implemented in ac3dec protected by one of Dolby's patents?

- If the code in ac3dec the result of reverse engineering of Dolby's
  code, using knowledge of Dolby's intellectual property?
  (i.e. by someone under NDA, or under a license agreement)


  If the answer to any of these is 'yes', then the code (or more) will
have to change.  If the answer to all of these is 'no', then Dolby
doesn't have much of a leg to stand on.


  But, yes, the DMCA does give additional ammunition to large
companies.  Patents aren't enough.  Copyrights aren't enough.  The
companies want to be judge, jury, and executioner, for any issue where
there's the remotest possibility that they don't like what you've
done.

  Passing a DMCA law and paying lawyers to sue people is cheaper and
easier than getting patents.  And it avoids all of those nasty issues
about patents being "non-obvious", or "original".  The DMCA is a law
which effectively grants infinited-term patent protection to
*anything*, without review.  And it removes all possible recourse that
potential "infringers" have.

  Alan DeKok.
--
For (un)subscription information, posting guidelines and
links to other related sites please see http://www.flora.org/dmca/