In article <39DA50BF.918BCC0@sunder.net>, sunder wrote:

Heh - apparently the judge decided that it's okay to allow reverse engineering in this case. Wonder how this will affect DeCSS...

Well, the MPAA v 2600 case ("constructing and trafficing in a circumvention device") isn't about reverse engineering, so "not at all". The weaker DVD-CCA case ("theft of a trade secret in violation of a clickthrough licence agreement" (said agreement having been clicked through by a minor in anither country, of course)) depends on how the reverse-engineering Connectix did relates to that done by the original CSS extractors. - Ian