🚀 go-pugleaf

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.
It is that contract which attempts to impose the duty of no reverse
engineering on you (as a part of a trade secret agreement between you
and the company) in addition to patent and copyright obligations. And it
is the "total destruction of modern commercial society if such contracts
are found to be illegal" which the software firms will use in court to
attempt to declare those contracts defacto legal.