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