Still no kmod for new nvidia

[Bill Davidsen]

Bruno Wolff III wrote:
> On Wed, Jul 28, 2010 at 23:48:57 -0400,
>   Paul Allen Newell <pnewell at cs.cmu.edu> wrote:
>> If doing a "black-box" only job of "reverse engineering" requires one to 
>> load memory with a trademark, how does this fall into the realm of 
>> acceptable?
> 
> There was a court case where a company was using a copyrighted phrase
> for access control. A competitor won when they also used the same phrase
> for access control purposes.
> 
> That was a long time ago and people seemed to feel that when a customer
> bought something, they owned it. In today's environment that case might
> have gone differently.

Judging from the Apple jail breaking case a few days ago, I'm guessing no vendor 
is eager to see how much they can restrict people from using hardware they 
bought. Just my read, I am not a lawyer.

-- 
Bill Davidsen <davidsen at tmr.com>
   "We have more to fear from the bungling of the incompetent than from
the machinations of the wicked."  - from Slashdot