🚀 go-pugleaf

On 7 Oct 1998 18:30:11 GMT, unruh@physics.ubc.ca (Bill Unruh) wrote:

>In <361B7A36.FE8B443A@mindspring.com> "Keith G. Murphy" <keithmur@mindspring.com> writes:
>
>>Phil Hunt wrote:
>>> 
>>> In article <slrn71hu0p.3pi.dblake@dylan.ucsf.edu>
>>> >
>>> > They would have to have patented the ideas in Word to make it
>>> > illegal to reverse engineer it.
>
>No. There is loads of case law stating that reverse engineering of a
>patented process or of a "trade secret" (as long as you did not sign a
>non-disclosure agreement) is legal. If you patent it you can then
>prevent the person from using the knowledge gained to create a product
>using the patented process, etc. In fact, a precondition of a patent is
>that full disclosure of the patented thing be made. If it is not
>disclosed, it is not patented. And teh patent office files are open for
>anyone to read.
>
>It is only software which tries, via a "shrinkwrap license" to impose a
>contract on you which you did not sign (that is why software companies
>want you to register- registration often includes a statement that you
>agree to the terms of the contract). The frightening thing is that the
>courts may eventually rule such contracts as de facto legal contracts,
>even thought they flyin the face of all prior contract law. Just as
>federal income tax is now legal in the USA despite being non-constitutional.

sorry pal, the income tax is constitutional because the Supreme Court,
which under the constitution is the final arbiter of what is
constitutional, has ruled that it is.

all you can say is you disagree with the court's decision, but to deny
the efficacy of the decision is to exhibit a cognitive disorder.

Not that it should concern a canadien.

>It is that contract which attempts to impose the duty of no reverse

you are using the term duty incorrectly.

>engineering on you (as a part of a trade secret agreement between you
>and the company) in addition to patent and copyright obligations. 

patents and copyrights don't impose obligations on anybody.

>And it
>is the "total destruction of modern commercial society if such contracts
>are found to be illegal" 

considering that such contracts have already been found to be illegal,
it's dubious that any court is going to find much merit in such an
argument.

>which the software firms will use in court to
>attempt to declare those contracts defacto legal.

interesting (albeit incorrect) use of the expression de facto.