Re: [PATCH] Add CONFIG_VFAT_NO_CREATE_WITH_LONGNAMES option

[Valdis.Kletnieks@vt.edu]

[-- Attachment #1: Type: text/plain, Size: 1410 bytes --]

On Mon, 04 May 2009 20:34:42 PDT, "Paul E. McKenney" said:

> I am more than happy to let you search the case law on this one.

Ya know, it's that same "I'll let your lawyers rediscover the stuff that mine
already found" issue that's making this thread a pain.

Case saying (C) *possibly* sufficient (ruling 'c-in-hexagon' was sufficient):
Videotronics v. Bend Electronics, 586 F.Supp. 478, 481 (D. Nev. 1984)

Case saying it might not be:
Forry v. Neundorfer, 837 F.2d 259, 266 (6th Cir., 1988)

Neundorfer says:

"Videotronics, Inc. v. Bend Electronics, 586 F.Supp. 478 (D.Nev.1984) held that
a letter "C" enclosed within a hexagon met the statutory requirements, but
suggested in dicta that the symbol "(C)" might not be sufficient because
parentheses, unlike a hexagon or a circle, would not completely enclose the
"C". Id. at 481. However, if a "C" in a hexagon is sufficient, an argument
exists that a "C" in parentheses is sufficient. Defendants here had actual
notice of copyright. The trial of this action may provide a better record on
which to finally decide whether the symbol "(C)" is sufficiently similar to a
"C" in a circle to serve as notice of a copyright. Plaintiff is apparently now
using the "C" in a circle. It may therefore be entitled to rely on 405(a)(2)
even if the earlier symbol was not sufficient."

Clear as mud, unless you have a more recent cite. :)

[-- Attachment #2: Type: application/pgp-signature, Size: 226 bytes --]