what moral obligation? (Re: DRM technology and policy)

[Jim Choate]

On Mon, 5 May 2003, Steve Schear wrote:

> At 10:48 PM 5/5/2003 -0700, you wrote:
> >At 9:36 AM -0700 4/29/03, Major Variola (ret) wrote:
> > >Actually, non-standard CDs sold with the CD logo are fraudulent, since
> > >they violate
> > >a published standard which the logo implies.  I'm surprised this avenue
> > >hasn't been
> > >taken legally.
> >
> >I believe that the Philips, who holds the trademark for compact disks, has
> >said that copy protected disks do not follow the standard and may not use
> >the trademark.
>
> If so, couldn't the labels selling be charged with deceptive advertising?

Probably, -if- it were in Philips best interest. It isn't. What -is- in
Philips best interest is to change their standard so that they can license
exceptions to this. This means they are in a position to monopolize the
market of DRM in regards CD technology.

An additional strategy Philips may be trying is to close down CD
technology and force the market into some newer standard that would allow
Philips a longer-lived income stream. What sorts of patents and IP does
Philips have in DVD technology for example?


 --
    ____________________________________________________________________

      We are all interested in the future for that is where you and I
      are going to spend the rest of our lives.

                              Criswell, "Plan 9 from Outer Space"

      ravage at ssz.com                            jchoate at open-forge.org
      www.ssz.com                               www.open-forge.org
    --------------------------------------------------------------------