🚀 go-pugleaf

Bill Unruh <unruh@physics.ubc.ca> 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.

Otherwise it would be hard for any arbitrater to handle a claim of
patent infringement. (Or the defence of "well I simply happened to
come up with the same idea independantly.")

> 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.

IIRC the USA has the situation that all laws created by a legistalive
body are considered to abide by the constitution unless proved otherwise.

Probably they don't want to deal with all the trials for treason which
would result if they made it a condition that legislation must be in
accordance with their constitution before being proposed :)