I wonder if this change the eula on all products?

G

Greg R

Pardon My grammar.
Sorry to post to three groups. I think thia decision is very
important. I wonder if this change the eula on all products?



Does this court dession mean that I can use an oem copy of any
software including operating systems like a retail version now?




* Skylink Wins Appeal in Garage Door Opener Case

Court Rules Copyright Law Cannot Be Used to Stifle
Competition

Washington, DC - A federal appeals court in Washington, DC,
this week upheld a lower court ruling that allows the
marketing of "universal" remote controls for garage door
openers, an important decision that helps pave the way
for competition and lower prices in the after-market
and replacement parts arena.

"Competition in after-market and replacement parts, such
as remote garage door controls, helps create lower prices
and better products," said Kenneth DeGraff, a researcher
for Consumers Union. "Allowing one company to control
those markets and the prices they charge hurts consumers."

The Digital Millennium Copyright Act (DMCA) was passed in
1998 to stop mass copyright infringement on the Internet,
but some companies have gone beyond this purpose and
invoked its controversial "anti-circumvention" clause to
stave off the competition. The Samuelson Law, Technology &
Public Policy Clinic at Boalt Hall School of Law, UC
Berkeley, and the Electronic Frontier Foundation (EFF)
co-authored the Consumers Union brief to help stand up
for consumer rights and the right to create new
after-market technologies capable of interoperating with
legitimately purchased products.

Jennifer M. Urban, the lead attorney on the case at the
Samuelson Clinic, said, "The court recognized that
copyright law grants rights to consumers as well as
copyright holders and held that the DMCA did not wipe
those rights away."

"Chamberlain's lawsuit sought to stifle competition by
misusing the DMCA," said Deirdre K. Mulligan, Director
of the Samuelson Clinic. "Congress warned of such abuses,
and we're pleased that the court rejected this view to
avoid harming consumers."

"When consumers buy a garage door opener, they have the
right to use whatever remote they want with it, even
one from another company," said Jason Schultz, EFF Staff
Attorney and a co-author of the brief. "In Chamberlain's
view, it's their remote or no remote. Thanks to this
decision, they've now been shown that the law views
it differently."

Skylink won decisions in the lower court and at the
International Trade Commission, but Chamberlain appealed,
claiming that Skylink's remote control device circumvents
access controls to a computer program in its garage door
opener. In its decision, the Court of Appeals rejected
Chamberlain's claims, further noting that if the court
adopted Chamberlain's interpretation of the DMCA, it
would threaten many legitimate uses of software within
electronic and computer products - something the law
aims to protect.

"[Chamberlain's interpretation] would...allow any copyright
owner, through a combination of contractual terms and
technological measures, to repeal the fair use doctrine
with respect to an individual copyrighted work - or even
selected copies of that copyrighted work," wrote the
court. "Copyright law itself authorizes the public to
make certain uses of copyrighted materials. Consumers
who purchase a product containing a copy of embedded
software have the inherent legal right to use that
copy of the software. What the law authorizes,
Chamberlain cannot revoke."

For the full press release:
http://www.eff.org/news/archives/2004_09.php#001867



Greg R
http://www.angelfire.com/in4/computertips/
 
B

Ben

Greg said:
Pardon My grammar.
Sorry to post to three groups. I think thia decision is very
important. I wonder if this change the eula on all products?



Does this court dession mean that I can use an oem copy of any
software including operating systems like a retail version now?




* Skylink Wins Appeal in Garage Door Opener Case

Court Rules Copyright Law Cannot Be Used to Stifle
Competition

Washington, DC - A federal appeals court in Washington, DC,
this week upheld a lower court ruling that allows the
marketing of "universal" remote controls for garage door
openers, an important decision that helps pave the way
for competition and lower prices in the after-market
and replacement parts arena.

"Competition in after-market and replacement parts, such
as remote garage door controls, helps create lower prices
and better products," said Kenneth DeGraff, a researcher
for Consumers Union. "Allowing one company to control
those markets and the prices they charge hurts consumers."

The Digital Millennium Copyright Act (DMCA) was passed in
1998 to stop mass copyright infringement on the Internet,
but some companies have gone beyond this purpose and
invoked its controversial "anti-circumvention" clause to
stave off the competition. The Samuelson Law, Technology &
Public Policy Clinic at Boalt Hall School of Law, UC
Berkeley, and the Electronic Frontier Foundation (EFF)
co-authored the Consumers Union brief to help stand up
for consumer rights and the right to create new
after-market technologies capable of interoperating with
legitimately purchased products.

Jennifer M. Urban, the lead attorney on the case at the
Samuelson Clinic, said, "The court recognized that
copyright law grants rights to consumers as well as
copyright holders and held that the DMCA did not wipe
those rights away."

"Chamberlain's lawsuit sought to stifle competition by
misusing the DMCA," said Deirdre K. Mulligan, Director
of the Samuelson Clinic. "Congress warned of such abuses,
and we're pleased that the court rejected this view to
avoid harming consumers."

"When consumers buy a garage door opener, they have the
right to use whatever remote they want with it, even
one from another company," said Jason Schultz, EFF Staff
Attorney and a co-author of the brief. "In Chamberlain's
view, it's their remote or no remote. Thanks to this
decision, they've now been shown that the law views
it differently."

Skylink won decisions in the lower court and at the
International Trade Commission, but Chamberlain appealed,
claiming that Skylink's remote control device circumvents
access controls to a computer program in its garage door
opener. In its decision, the Court of Appeals rejected
Chamberlain's claims, further noting that if the court
adopted Chamberlain's interpretation of the DMCA, it
would threaten many legitimate uses of software within
electronic and computer products - something the law
aims to protect.

"[Chamberlain's interpretation] would...allow any copyright
owner, through a combination of contractual terms and
technological measures, to repeal the fair use doctrine
with respect to an individual copyrighted work - or even
selected copies of that copyrighted work," wrote the
court. "Copyright law itself authorizes the public to
make certain uses of copyrighted materials. Consumers
who purchase a product containing a copy of embedded
software have the inherent legal right to use that
copy of the software. What the law authorizes,
Chamberlain cannot revoke."

For the full press release:
http://www.eff.org/news/archives/2004_09.php#001867



Greg R
http://www.angelfire.com/in4/computertips/
Dear Sir:
Could you plz tell me what do you want to know, I am confused.
 
B

Bruce Chambers

Greetings --

I don't even see how it's relevant.

Bruce Chambers
--
Help us help you:



You can have peace. Or you can have freedom. Don't ever count on
having both at once. - RAH
 
P

PWY

Only if you are using it to open your garage door.



* Skylink Wins Appeal in Garage Door Opener Case

Court Rules Copyright Law Cannot Be Used to Stifle Competition

Washington, DC - A federal appeals court in Washington, DC, this week
upheld a lower court ruling that allows the marketing of "universal"
remote controls for garage door openers, an important decision that helps
pave the way for competition and lower prices in the after-market and
replacement parts arena.

"Competition in after-market and replacement parts, such as remote garage
door controls, helps create lower prices and better products," said
Kenneth DeGraff, a researcher for Consumers Union. "Allowing one company
to control those markets and the prices they charge hurts consumers."

The Digital Millennium Copyright Act (DMCA) was passed in 1998 to stop
mass copyright infringement on the Internet, but some companies have gone
beyond this purpose and invoked its controversial "anti-circumvention"
clause to stave off the competition. The Samuelson Law, Technology &
Public Policy Clinic at Boalt Hall School of Law, UC Berkeley, and the
Electronic Frontier Foundation (EFF) co-authored the Consumers Union
brief to help stand up for consumer rights and the right to create new
after-market technologies capable of interoperating with legitimately
purchased products.

Jennifer M. Urban, the lead attorney on the case at the Samuelson Clinic,
said, "The court recognized that copyright law grants rights to consumers
as well as copyright holders and held that the DMCA did not wipe those
rights away."

"Chamberlain's lawsuit sought to stifle competition by misusing the
DMCA," said Deirdre K. Mulligan, Director of the Samuelson Clinic.
"Congress warned of such abuses, and we're pleased that the court
rejected this view to avoid harming consumers."

"When consumers buy a garage door opener, they have the right to use
whatever remote they want with it, even one from another company," said
Jason Schultz, EFF Staff Attorney and a co-author of the brief. "In
Chamberlain's view, it's their remote or no remote. Thanks to this
decision, they've now been shown that the law views it differently."

Skylink won decisions in the lower court and at the International Trade
Commission, but Chamberlain appealed, claiming that Skylink's remote
control device circumvents access controls to a computer program in its
garage door opener. In its decision, the Court of Appeals rejected
Chamberlain's claims, further noting that if the court adopted
Chamberlain's interpretation of the DMCA, it would threaten many
legitimate uses of software within electronic and computer products -
something the law aims to protect.

"[Chamberlain's interpretation] would...allow any copyright owner,
through a combination of contractual terms and technological measures, to
repeal the fair use doctrine with respect to an individual copyrighted
work - or even selected copies of that copyrighted work," wrote the
court. "Copyright law itself authorizes the public to make certain uses
of copyrighted materials. Consumers who purchase a product containing a
copy of embedded software have the inherent legal right to use that copy
of the software. What the law authorizes, Chamberlain cannot revoke."

For the full press release:
http://www.eff.org/news/archives/2004_09.php#001867



Greg R
http://www.angelfire.com/in4/computertips/
Dear Sir:
Could you plz tell me what do you want to know, I am confused.
 
G

Greg R

Eula
If any part is not enforceable by law the remainder shall be enforced.

You people need to read better. Remember, this is a federal court
decision.

See inline
Court Rules Copyright Law Cannot Be Used to Stifle Competition
Washington, DC - A federal appeals court in Washington, DC,
this week upheld a lower court ruling that allows the marketing of
"universal" remote controls for garage door openers, an important
decision that helps pave the way for competition and lower prices in
the after-market and replacement parts arena.
"Competition in after-market and replacement parts, such
as remote garage door controls, helps create lower prices
and better products," said Kenneth DeGraff, a researcher
for Consumers Union. "Allowing one company to control
those markets and the prices they charge hurts consumers."

The Digital Millennium Copyright Act (DMCA) was passed in
1998 to stop mass copyright infringement on the Internet,
but some companies have gone beyond this purpose and
invoked its controversial "anti-circumvention" clause to
stave off the competition. The Samuelson Law, Technology &
Public Policy Clinic at Boalt Hall School of Law, UC
Berkeley, and the Electronic Frontier Foundation (EFF)
co-authored the Consumers Union brief to help stand up
for consumer rights and the right to create new
after-market technologies capable of interoperating with
legitimately purchased products.

This above actual means.
Microsoft now could make mac os and mac could make windows os.
Actual anyone could make a windows, mac, or any other type of
operating system because of this ruling



Jennifer M. Urban, the lead attorney on the case at the
Samuelson Clinic, said, "The court recognized that
copyright law grants rights to consumers as well as
copyright holders and held that the DMCA did not wipe
those rights away."

This above means I can know legally use an oem copy on another
machine.

"Chamberlain's lawsuit sought to stifle competition by
misusing the DMCA," said Deirdre K. Mulligan, Director
of the Samuelson Clinic. "Congress warned of such abuses,
and we're pleased that the court rejected this view to
avoid harming consumers."
"When consumers buy a garage door opener, they have the
right to use whatever remote they want with it, even
one from another company," said Jason Schultz, EFF Staff
Attorney and a co-author of the brief. "In Chamberlain's
view, it's their remote or no remote. Thanks to this
decision, they've now been shown that the law views
it differently."

This above makes http://www.litepc.com/ legal.
Skylink won decisions in the lower court and at the
International Trade Commission, but Chamberlain appealed,
claiming that Skylink's remote control device circumvents
access controls to a computer program in its garage door
opener. In its decision, the Court of Appeals rejected
Chamberlain's claims, further noting that if the court
adopted Chamberlain's interpretation of the DMCA, it
would threaten many legitimate uses of software within
electronic and computer products - something the law
aims to protect.

This above means. They are using software to control competitors
software. That would like beinng able to use Mac to run Windows
Operating system and vice versa.

Consumers who purchase a product containing a copy of embedded
software have the inherent legal right to use that copy of the software.

So even I unknowingly purchased a incorrectly sold oem copy. I have
a legal right to use it know because of the word "inherenet"


This is my interpretation of the court ruling. I would not be
suppressed if some tries to create an windows/mac based operating
system because of that this ruling.


For the full press release:
http://www.eff.org/news/archives/2004_09.php#001867



Greg R







http://www.angelfire.com/in4/computertips/
 
F

Frank

Read the article again.

Bruce Chambers said:
Greetings --

I don't even see how it's relevant.

Bruce Chambers
--
Help us help you:



You can have peace. Or you can have freedom. Don't ever count on
having both at once. - RAH
 

Ask a Question

Want to reply to this thread or ask your own question?

You'll need to choose a username for the site, which only take a couple of moments. After that, you can post your question and our members will help you out.

Ask a Question

Top