🚀 go-pugleaf

Andrue,

May be legal but it ain't moral.

We program in lockouts and false trails because of these laws. It costs us
tons of money to protect our programs from thieves. And reverse engineering
is, in my opinion, theft. That cost is passed on to the companies who buy
our equipment who then pass it onto to, "you guessed it," you. So the next
time you buy food at the store and complain about the cost, look in the
mirror to see who you should be complaining to.

Note: I do not have links but try to find "Yamato vs. Ishida: Double shift,
Triple shift, Software concept." (or was it the other way around?) and
"Hayssen vs. Kawashima."

--
Phil Robertson

BSIT   phil4114@email.uophx.edu
Work   Phil.Robertson@hayssen.com
Home  PhilR80245@aol.com

-----------------------------------------------------------

"Andrue Cope" <not.a.valid@email.address.sorry> wrote in message
news:VA.00001aee.0a849b11@email.address.sorry...
> Remy Lebeau (TeamB),
>
> > When it comes to the law, don't make assumptions.
> >
>
> Absolutely. OTOH I have seen numerous articles in books and on the web
that
> all indicate it's legal. Severalk (one of the links I give below) site
> specific court cases.
>
> > Can you provide the actual legal source that specifically allows that
under
> > US law?
> >
>
> I can find several URLs relating to it but here's the most comprehensive:
>
>
>
http://www.southernct.edu/organizations/rccs/resources/research/intellectual
_
> property/ownership_mono/snapper/using_the_results.html
>
>   or
>
> http://tinyurl.com/6gjw
>
> This outlines the method that PC clone manufacturers used to clone the
> original PC BIOS. They employ developers to reverse engineer the original
> BIOS and produce a specification for it. Then they employ a fresh bunch of
> developers (who sign an agreement stating that they have never seen the
> original BIOS) to write the clone version. Neither of these steps are
> illegal.
>
> But another link:
>
>   http://www.public.asu.edu/~jeremy/acis_delaware_letter.DOC
>
> To quote from it:
>
> "The U.S. Supreme Court has defined reverse engineering as "starting with
the
> known product and working backwards to devine the process which aided in
its
> development and manufacture."  Kewanee v. Bicron, 416 U.S. 470, 476
(1974).
> The Court recognized that reverse engineering is a "fair and honest" means
of
> uncovering trade secrets in publicly distributed products, and that it is
> essential to competition and the progress of science and the arts -- the
> Constitutional objective of intellectual property."
>
> And FWIW here's the EU directive:
>
>   http://www.copyrighter.ru/lite/index.html?eu91_250_eng.htm
>
> And to quote from that:
>
> "Article 6 Decompilation
>
>    1. The authorization of the rightholder shall not be required where
> reproduction of the code and translation of its form within the meaning of
> Article 4 (a) and (b) are indispensable to obtain the information
necessary
> to achieve the interoperability of an independently created computer
program
> with other programs, provided that the following conditions are met:
>    (a) these acts are performed by the licensee or by another person
having a
> right to use a copy of a program, or on their behalf by a person
authorized
> to to so;
>
>    (b) the information necessary to achieve interoperability has not
> previously been readily available to the persons referred to in
subparagraph
> (a); and (c) these acts are confined to the parts of the original program
> which are necessary to achieve interoperability.
>    2. The provisions of paragraph 1 shall not permit the information
obtained
> through its application:
>    (a) to be used for goals other than to achieve the interoperability of
the
> independently created computer program;
>
>    (b) to be given to others, except when necessary for the
interoperability
> of the independently created computer program; or (c) to be used for the
> development, production or marketing of a computer program substantially
> similar in its expression, or for any other act which infringes copyright.
>    3. In accordance with the provisions of the Berne Convention for the
> protection of Literary and Artistic Works, the provisions of this Article
may
> not be interpreted in such a way as to allow its application to be used in
a
> manner which unreasonably prejudices the right holder's legitimate
interests
> or conflicts with a normal exploitation of the computer program. "
>
> Andrue Cope
> [Bicester, UK]
>