In 2000, I wrote a Linux device driver that “decrypted” the output of a certain device, and my company, which hosted open-source projects, agreed to host it.
The “encryption” was only a XOR, but that was enough for the maker of said device to sue my company under 17 U.S.C. § 1201 for hundreds of millions in damages.
The story got a lot of press back then because it highlighted how stupid the then-new DMCA was, and also because there was a David open-source enthusiasts vs. Goliath heartless corporation flavor to it.
Our lawyer decided to pick up the fight to generate free publicity for our fledgling company. For discovery, the maker of the device requested “a copy of any and all potentially infringing source code”. They weren’t specific and they didn’t specify the medium.
So we printed the entire Linux kernel source code including my driver in 5-pt font and sent them the boxes of printouts. Legally they had been served, so there was nothing they could do about it.
Somehow I doubt this.
Maybe it’s true but legally I know in California you are required to do your briefs in 12 point font. While that’s briefs, I would imagine evidence would be under the same banner. It definitely WOULD be illegal to do it in 1 pt font or intentionally making it unreadable. I would imagine if the other side wanted to make it an issue they could back to the judge and he’s probably have it out with you.
Maybe the lawyers wisely replaced your malicious compliance with correct sized print with out telling you, maybe the other side didn’t care.
This was in Utah. I’m no lawyer. Maybe it wasn’t legal. What’s what our lawyer said he did.
I don’t think the font size matters too much in this, it’s just the printing the whole source code, including a lot of not directly relevant things, and sending all of that over in a few boxes instead of sharing the project files with them that is very malicious.
It’s also very common in legal cases to share evidence printed out, instead of in digitally, to make sure it isn’t easy for the other side.