4 ms·
>>functional requirements for compatibility” between computer programs “are not protected by copyright This was in regards to Accolade (game company) reverse e
by vegedor 12y ago
>>functional requirements for compatibility” between computer programs “are not protected by copyright
This was in regards to Accolade (game company) reverse engineering, and reimplementing the software side of the security procedure of the sega genesis for third-party game cartridges. Following the source leads nowhere to an explanation of the quote. Must be a pretty trivial notion.
Still interesting case, though. First of all, it's puzzling that they just talk about "functional" requirements and concepts. "Well, what isn't functional?", said the Haskeller.
>The TMSS initialization code is a functional feature of a <24 USPQ2d 1577> Genesis-compatible game and Accolade may not be barred from using it.
>Functional features of a product are features ‘which constitute the actual benefit that the consumer wishes to purchase, as distinguished from an assurance that a particular entity made, sponsored, or endorsed a product.’”
I don't, what? Are they basing copyright-eligability on consumers' ability to understand features that interact to form other features? How is the Trademark, that was shown as part of the security check (only on consoles newer than the games), precluded from that desire?
>Accolade did not seek to avoid paying a customarily charged fee for use of those procedures, nor did it simply copy Sega’s code; rather, it wrote its own procedures based on what it had learned through disassembly
Wait, did they pay a fee to use the procedures? What's the case about again? Then, reimplementation is based on the understanding derived from the translation of the object code. Translation is prohibited under copyright, except for fair use. The fair use here is interpretation of an idea and expression of the same idea in different semantics, translation for short. Never mind the irony, surely there wasn't any commercial gain involved, so it's still somewhat fair use. Apparently, a security check that can be broken isn't a commercial advantage, so, its defeat is no benefit. It's defeat is only lawful, because it isn't copyrightable in the first place.
This is so messed up, it just doesn't make sense.
- lmm 12y ago> I don't, what? Are they basing copyright-eligability on consumers' ability to understand features that interact to form other features? How is the Trademark, that was shown as part of the security check (only on consoles newer than the games), precluded from that desire? The point is that it's in customer's interests for Sega to be able to e.g. only display the Sega logo for games that use Sega chips. That's a non-functional feature, so to speak, and there are good reasons for it (e.g. some low-quality third party chips could damage the console itself). The court is looking after customers' interests by distinguishing between that and a functional feature. > Translation is prohibited under copyright, except for fair use. Nope. Translations are derived works and may not be distributed without the copyright holder's permission, but there's no law against making a translation in-house and using it internally. > surely there wasn't any commercial gain involved, so it's still somewhat fair use That's not what fair use means.
- dragonwriter 12y ago> Translations are derived works and may not be distributed without the copyright holder's permission, but there's no law against making a translation in-house and using it internally. Incorrect. The right to prepare (not merely distribute) derivative works, including translations, is one of the exclusive rights of creators included in copyright. [0] [0] 17 USC Sec. 106.