José Luís Malaquias
Senior Member
Good question. The short truth is I'm not sure.
Possible explanation is:
-Canon forgot to file patents on the EF mount, or it is not patentable for some technical reason.
-It is to Canon's interest that there is a market for Canon compatible products.
-Because when that started, there was no DMCA in place.
-Because there is some difference that allows them to argue that a cartridge is circunventing something, and a lens isn't.
http://www.malaquias.net/en/joseluis/
Possible explanation is:
-Canon forgot to file patents on the EF mount, or it is not patentable for some technical reason.
-It is to Canon's interest that there is a market for Canon compatible products.
-Because when that started, there was no DMCA in place.
-Because there is some difference that allows them to argue that a cartridge is circunventing something, and a lens isn't.
------Also, reverse engineering is legal in many countries, especially
when it is to make a piece of equipment work as the owner of said
equipment desires.
dlesko
There is one argument that all the doomsayers out there still
haven't thought of.
Running the hack is a violation of the DMCA.
Hacking a product to enable features that were purposedly disables
is a crime. Even if you commit it outside the US, and never intend
to go there in your life.
A russian programmer was once arrested because while in Moscow he
circunvented a sloppy copy protection scheme by Adobe.
Don't you love it that Uncle Sam feels free to legislate on what we
foreigners can do in our own country?
I think we should deserve to vote for the US government, since we
are under its laws. At least I know someone who would never get a
second term.
--
http://www.malaquias.net/en/joseluis/
http://www.malaquias.net/en/joseluis/
I am not an English native speaker!
Please email me at [email protected] for questions
http://www.pbase.com/zylen
http://www.photosig.com/go/users/userphotos?id=26918
http://www.malaquias.net/en/joseluis/