W3C home > Mailing lists > Public > www-font@w3.org > July to September 2009

Re: EOT & DMCA concerns

From: Thomas Lord <lord@emf.net>
Date: Tue, 04 Aug 2009 10:16:04 -0700
To: "Tab Atkins Jr." <jackalmage@gmail.com>
Cc: Thomas Phinney <tphinney@cal.berkeley.edu>, John Hudson <tiro@tiro.com>, www-font@w3.org
Message-Id: <1249406164.6196.47.camel@dell-desktop.example.com>
On Mon, 2009-08-03 at 20:45 -0500, Tab Atkins Jr. wrote:

> > A very simple solution is for the EOTL backers
> > to make a positive statement that other browsers,
> > if they are going to do EOTL because of a MUST,
> > then SHOULD support all of EOTC (and have patent
> > protection in doing so) because that rounds out
> > the degree of compatibility with IE<=8.

> I'm not seeing how that follows.  Can you elaborate why supporting
> EOTC has any effect, positive or negative, on EOTL's risk of DMCA
> action?

In the MicroType v. Adobe case the court applied
a 6 point test and concluded that the plaintiff 
had failed to prove their case.  The court dwelled
a bit on whether two meta-data bits indicating 
licensing restrictions constituted an "effective
technological restriction" (and decided that, no,
they did not).  (The court found no shortage of 
defects in the plaintiff's case beyond that.)

We can't conclude from the reasoning applied
by the court in *that* case that the trival
"breakability" of EOT protections is not an 
effective technological restriction.

Indeed, if the mailing list archive of this
list were admitted in to evidence it would show
a discussion in which EOT protections are 
explicitly intended to be and believed to be
an effective technological restriction - the
"low garden wall".   So it is a far less
clear cut case.

Received on Tuesday, 4 August 2009 17:16:46 UTC

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.3.1 : Tuesday, 6 January 2015 21:01:41 UTC