Re:Incorrect (Score 1)

Do you have a reference to statute or a precedent that backs that statement up? Okay... no, but I'm not ready to give up yet. It isn't usually the case that data generated by a copyrighted program is automatically assumed to be held under the copyright of the owners of the program. For instance, Microsoft doesn't hold copyright to IP packets that are transmitted by windows machines, even though it is their code that assembles those packets. An interesting point. Wouldn't circumventing STK's copyright protection mechanism (definition used liberally: GetKey) be copyright infringement? Isn't this the same as using deCSS or any other copyright circumvention techniques? The 3rd party vendor is using STK's code to generate error logs and to diagnose hardware/software problems. They're basing their business largely on the unlicensed use of STK's intellectual property (the maintenance code in this case). How is that legal? I read someone mentioning SCO in another thread, but I don't see how this pertains to the SCO trials. This isn't some farfetched claim that STK contributed 2 lines in a sub-routine somewhere... this is proprietary software that is a major contributor to STK's revenue.. and by the looks of their earnings the past few quarters they need all the money they can get. It sucks that they've got a monopoly on the maintenance of the hardware they developed, but whoop-de-freakin-doo. That comes with the territory of buying "enterprise class" hardware, does it not?