<!DOCTYPE HTML PUBLIC "-//W3C//DTD HTML 4.0 Transitional//EN">
<HTML><HEAD>
<META http-equiv=Content-Type content="text/html; charset=iso-8859-1">
<META content="MSHTML 5.50.4611.1300" name=GENERATOR>
<STYLE></STYLE>
</HEAD>
<BODY bgColor=#ffffff>
<DIV><FONT face=Arial size=2>The court concluded that source code was
expressive, and object code was not. This is bad news (indirectly,
as the Dmitry and Elcomsoft cases are Federal) for Elcomsoft
and Dmitry, because AEBPR was distributed as object code. However, the
courts conclusion cannot be justified either technically or logically.
Technically, object code can be more or less mechanically translated to source
code form, if merely by disassembly. How can mere translation create
something which expresses an idea from something which does not?
Logically, Johansen is accused (and the court assumed arguendo that the
accusation had basis) of taking the trade secrets from Xing's code -- object
code -- to obtain the ideas expressed in DeCSS. If those ideas were
not expressed in the code they were taken from, where did they come
from? Technically again, what of interpreters, which execute source
code?</FONT></DIV>
<DIV><FONT face=Arial size=2></FONT> </DIV></BODY></HTML>