Really? Then go ahead and make it. And of course all sorts of arguments can be made, but that doesn't mean that a court, or anyone else, has to pay attention to it. So if you want to make an argument addressed to a court, you need to cite authority and provide reasons based on applicable legal principles the court should accept the argument.RX-178 said:Exactly how are mere cartoon images of guns in a video game required for the development, etc., of defense articles? On what bases, citing authority, do you contend that a court will agree that they are?
Well, I really have no idea how a court is going to agree or disagree with anything anymore, but I think an argument could still be made...
And exactly how accurately and completely does the video game show the operation of the gun? Does it add any information beyond the barest common knowledge of how to shoot a gun?RX-178 said:...Information required for the development (see §120.47) (including design, modification, and integration design), production (see §120.48) (including manufacture, assembly, and integration), operation, installation, maintenance, repair, overhaul, or refurbishing of a defense article....
Now, the word operation there, it doesn't cite any subsection of a document for its definition,...
"To your knowledge"? On exactly what do you base your knowledge? Do you have any evidence? Have you done any research? Willful ignorance is not the same a knowledge.RX-178 said:Do you contend that the cartoon images of guns on that video game have been disclosed to the public without authorization by one of those government agencies/officials? If so, on what bases, and on what evidence?
Well, to my knowledge I don't think they NEEDED authorization by the Directorate of Defense Controls to release a video game in 2005, which would stand to reason that they never GOT any authorization.
In any case, a court would almost certainly conclude that if authorization were not required a lack of authorization would not be relevant nor would it turn otherwise public domain information into protected information.
In fact, that sort of thing comes up regularly in litigation over wrongful disclosure of confidential or classified information. One charged with wrongfully disclosing confidential or classified information will often argue that the information has lost its protection by having been previously disclosed. So provisions like this paragraph (b) are often used in laws or regulations (or contracts) to cut off that sort of argument and prevent someone who has wrongfully disclosed protected information from escaping liability because someone else has wrongfully disclosed protected information.