Macrovision’s attorney explained how and why it charged patent in...
Macrovision’s attorney explained how and why it charged patent infringement in its suit vs. 321 Studios, in addition to claims of Digital Millennium Copyright Act (DMCA) violations against the company. On May 11, the U.S. Dist. Court, N.Y.C., granted…
Sign up for a free preview to unlock the rest of this article
Export Compliance Daily combines U.S. export control news, foreign border import regulation and policy developments into a single daily information service that reliably informs its trade professional readers about important current issues affecting their operations.
Macrovision a preliminary injunction against the sale of 321’s DVD X Copy family of DVD backup software, which 321 said it would appeal (CED May 19 p8). Unlike other suits against by content owners, which mainly have charged violation of the DMCA’s provisions against circumventing copy protection, Macrovision’s suit used 2 complementary approaches of attack by asserting DMCA violations and claims for infringing Macrovision’s patented copy protection, which is used in most DVD players sold worldwide. “The vast majority of Hollywood DVDs are protected by software flags that trigger the patented anti-copy methods within DVD players,” said Macrovision attorney Robert Becker. “When those flags are copied by DVD X Copy, the patented methods are triggered and performed without license from Macrovision. A patent infringement results. When the software flags are removed, the anti-copy mechanism is circumvented, resulting in a violation of the DMCA.” The preliminary injunction granted to Macrovision follows similar ones granted by the N.Y.C. court March 3 in Paramount Pictures v. 321 Studios and Feb. 20 by the U.S. Dist. Court, San Francisco. Each court found the DVD X Copy line violates the DMCA by circumventing DVD’s Content Scrambling System (CSS). Since the Feb. 20 Cal. ruling, 321 has been able to sell only copying software that lacks a “CSS ripper.”