Brief Analysis On Reverse Engineering Software 157
An unnamed correspondent writes: "
An article on PlanetIT.com discusses a court ruling that establishes the reverse-engineering of hardware and software as legal, under the "fair use" umbrella. What ramifications does this have in the industry? Can I reverse-engineer MS Word and write a word processor that can read and save .DOC files?" The article also asks the eternal burning question "Is the DMCA contradicting itself?" Though the court cases this piece deals with aren't new, the issues they deal with aren't going away, and it turns out that the Bleem and DeCSS cases may have more influence on other reverse engineering cases than anyone anticipated. Will sense chase out absurdity?
Re:Have you forgotten already? (Score:2)
I'm doing a lot a reverse engeneering and thats the reason why I asked a few lawyers about it allready
EULAs are completely unenforcable (Score:1)
click the "I accept" button.
Unless someone at the point of sale actually gets a signature from you that you have read, fully understand and accept the agreement (or unless you're stupid enough to send in such a signed agreement voluntarily), No-one can prove that you were ever aware of the EULA, let alone have read it or (shock, horror) actually agree to it.
In fact, if the software comes pre-installed, you can even reverse engineer it without anyone ever having to click on the "I accept" button.
--
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:1)
Does this have any relevance to DMCA? (Score:2)
1. The original case was filed sometime in 1999
2. DMCA became law in
So the alleged infringements may have been committed before DMCA became law. If that's true (and assuming that the crazy US legal system doesn't allow retrospective laws to be enacted), this case will have little use as precedence for cases being prosecuted under DMCA.
--
Re:MS Word format (Score:2)
If you look at the compatibility matrix, you'll find that it's mainly 2000 and 97 that they claim interoperate. But even if they actually interoperate, given Microsoft's history, most buyers I have talked to don't seem to assume that they have to upgrade to 2000 anyway in order to be able to read other people's files.
Sure, it's easy to beat: with a free database. There are several of them, and they work and scale a lot better than Access.
Re:Reverse Engineering -- A Unique Opportunity. (Score:1)
Well, we can try, now can't we?
New worlds are not born in the vacuum of abstract
Re:Well, that clears that up, then. (Score:2)
The case seemed like a fairly ideal one for SCOTUS to take, and they refused to hear it-- that seems like a very good sign, actually. It's certainly possible that they didn't feel like hearing any more cases in that term or somesuch, but they had to be conscious that by refusing to hear it, they significantly strengthened the 9th Circuit's ruling.
Re:Reverse engineering in non-US jurisdictions (Score:1)
Re: Doesn't really matter (Score:2)
Not quite, since the NDA only applies to the party who agreed to it in the first place. If they pass the information to a third party then that third party has done nothing wrong, since they were never a party to the agreement. Also the only protection a "trade secret" has is that it is a secret, if it becomes widely known then tough.
Re:Reverse Engineering -- A Unique Opportunity. (Score:2)
How is this any less "arbitrary" than any other metric?
Re:Adobe's tight hold on PDF? (Score:3)
Re:Anyone know, by chance, about MS Excel? (Score:1)
-Marcel
Book still available (Score:2)
Amazon have it listed here [amazon.com]. They reckon they can ship in 2-3 days.
Amazon's UK outfit can get it in 4-6 weeks [amazon.co.uk]
Funnily enough, Amazon in Germany [amazon.de] can get it in 3-5 weeks.
Read what you want into that. I blame Frankfurt airport.
What effect does this really have on software? (Score:3)
Does this mean we can legally see BeOS work on Macs and Be has no real reason to bitch anymore about lawsuits from Apple?
What does this mean for open source stuff as well? Is it now legal to take the TNT drivers from windows and reverse engineer those and publish your results to make optimized drivers for other OSes (same goes with any driver that isn't already supported). I know this happens a lot already through things like bus sniffers, but now that we can just disassemble things for research, that could make a lot of things much much easier. Especially since those complex while loops that check certain hardware statuses will now become much easier to decode by looking at the source code instead of accesses.
What will this mean for internet game servers as well? Will things like the UO clients and server ports become entirely legal now so there is no grey area or possible lawsuits?
What about something like disassembling the various parts of QNX and rewriting it to make a free alternative to QNX that's improved and optimized for specific platforms. You could greatly improve things like diskaccess in it by removing the microkernel-ish features and all the message passing it does.
Secrets are bad. (Score:2)
This is why the patent system was begun; it was an incentive to share ideas.
Maybe one day we will reverse engineer Coca-Cola.
Re:What's the difference between bleem! and DeCSS? (Score:1)
What, you didn't know that 'more money' == 'more rights'....
Sheesh...
DeCSS Reverse Engineering? No proof (Score:3)
Re:What's the difference between bleem! and DeCSS? (Score:2)
I don't think so. These two cases look exactly equivalent to me.
The supremely ironic thing is that bleem! actually makes money for Sony. The actual Playstation consoles are - and always have been - sold at a loss. Sony makes its money from titles. If you purchase bleem! and a bunch of titles, you give Sony its profits from the titles without incurring the loss to them of having to buy a console :)
I'm sure there's a flaw in this reasoning somewhere...
So their business model is flawed. So what ? (Score:1)
Company can't rely on customers using their contracts they way they intend it, unless they put it in the contract.
Re:MS Word format (Score:1)
While there were bits here and there of the spec that were not exactly as things were in reality I would not characterise the little bits of data dumping here and there to clarify the intent of the format as reverse engineering
C.
Does he? (Score:2)
Re:MS Word format (Score:1)
C.
Re:SO (Score:1)
C.
Re:Have you forgotten already? (Score:2)
Re:Graham Bell? Edison? (Score:2)
Any hat is a 'sombrero'.
Re:God says it's ok (Score:1)
Re:What's the difference between bleem! and DeCSS? (Score:1)
in a word: no (Score:1)
Re:Does this have any relevance to DMCA? (Score:1)
Signed on October 28, 1998. Mostly effective on that date, but the "prohibition on the act of circumvention of access control" not until 2 years after signing. see Copyright Office Home Page. [loc.gov]
I was also curious just where "fair use" ultimately comes from, and the answer is here [loc.gov]
Re:Is this just a misunderstanding? (Score:1)
Re:From a patent perspective... (Score:1)
Re:What's the difference between bleem! and DeCSS? (Score:1)
"But that's the extent to which the two cases should be compared [note: Sony vs. Connectix & the DeCSS case], because each contains some important distinctions, says Keith Kupferschmid, intellectual property counsel at the Software and Information Industry Association, a trade association of about 1,200 software and information companies based in Washington, D.C."
What kaosmunkee was saying is that there is *no* distinction between Sony vs. [bleem,Connectix] and the DeCSS case.
Note: kaosmunkee was comparing bleem and DeCSS while the article was comparing the Connectix and DeCSS cases, however his point still stands.
Re: Doesn't really matter (Score:1)
But then the people to sue are those who violate the NDA, yes? If you never signed an NDA and someone gives you the information (who is violating the NDA and hence could be sued) then aren't you clear to scream it from the rooftops?
Re:We have forgotten the IBM PC (Score:1)
What you call "re-engineering" *is* reverse engineering.
Re:God says it's ok (Score:2)
D
Re:As We Know it (Score:1)
A while back you paid for the hardware and the software came along with it, including upgrades and support.
Later people started charging for using their software to go with other peoples' hardware.
--
Re:What's the difference between bleem! and DeCSS? (Score:1)
Perhaps Sony figures that Bleem! users are more likely to be using pirated games? It's slightly more of a hassle to chip a PSX to accept burned cd's than it is to use Bleem! to work with .iso images from your local warez site, right?
But ppl who want to pirate games will always find a way. I don't think Bleem lowers the bar that much. So I'm not sure what Sony's deal is either. I mean I can get a chipped console for less than $100 now--and I can use a real "dual shock" controller and get DDR pads too ;) and not deal with all hassle of emulating a psx on my pc....
We have forgotten the IBM PC (Score:5)
MS Does this now (Score:2)
They import lots of other people's mail formats... but try getting your mailbox OUT of exchange and into someone else's format.
Re:What effect does this really have on software? (Score:1)
Re:What is being done to protect our rights? (Score:2)
> technology-savvy lawyers out fighting battles
> for us, and if not, are any reading this
> message?
Yes. The Eric Corley/2600/DeCSS case has the potential to overturn a lot of the most objectionable parts of the DMCA. There were stories about it on Slashdot over the last week.
Re:Book still available (Score:1)
Once burned, twice shy. It's a safe bet there won't be any other books authored by me.
Pete Davis
Re:God says it's ok (Score:1)
--------------------------------------
Re:We have forgotten the IBM PC (Score:1)
Open source means the source is made available, not that one can use it without a licence. Open source != Free. The fact that IBM published the source is what makes it "open".
Re:Have you forgotten already? (Score:1)
- Don't use the install program or, if you do, click on "I Disagree." This way you're not agreeing to the EULA.
- Use some free utility from the net to unpackage the CAB files (or whatever format the data is stored in).
- Reverse-engineer to your heart's content.
As long as there's no legislation making all reverse-engineering illegal, you haven't broken the software license (because you never agreed to it in the first place) and therefore you're still within your legal rights.Now I imagine someday the CAB files and whatnot will be encrypted so this method won't work, and will fall under the same umbrella as the current DeCSS case.
Re:Hey timothy (Score:1)
Re:What is being done to protect our rights? (Score:1)
Re:From a patent perspective... (Score:1)
As part the judgement in AT&T's Patent Infringement case against WU, AT&T got to use all of Edison's improvements (the carbon microphone being one that lasted until the 1970s.)
This just shows that innovation in the US is.. (Score:1)
Also has been said here before, but most of these large companies got their start doing the very same things they are now trying to make illegal. Just protecting the cash cow.
Very Brief! (Score:1)
Yes, yes, and yes.
Doesn't apply to DeCSS (Score:1)
Working in Linux doesn't count as interoperability (Score:1)
"The Reimerdes case dealt with somebody who didn't have a right to the DVD but was cracking through it to get the code, whereas the Connectix case dealt with a situation where a company was legally entitled to be using the code and reverse-engineering it for purposes of interoperability," he explains.
Can someone explain to me why DeCSS doesn't count as "for the purposes of interoperability"? I thought the whole point was to make DVD work on Linux? And, as far as him not having the right to it.... Does that mean that I don't have the right to [loop start]keep making VCDs on my home system, and run them on my DVD player[loop end] until it works?
Re:Well, that clears that up, then. (Score:1)
Despite your opinion of the current status of UCITA, I think that it is far from dead. Take a look at this map [ala.org] to see where UCITA lobbying activities are underway. Check out anti-UCITA ucita.com [ucita.com]. and pro-UCITA ucitaonline.com [ucitaonline.com]. It's still an issue that has to be followed or it'll take us all by surprise one day, by becoming the law of the land.
Ed
Re:Reverse Engineering file formats (Score:2)
Re:Reverse Engineering file formats (Score:1)
I suppose it's just impossible for us to ever verify that's it's not actually about his pet cat, seeing as we'll never be able to buy the book. (except used, libraries, etc)
Re: no, applies to anyone downstream (Score:1)
No, my impression is that if the source of the information can be traced back to a trade secret, the company can get an injunction against you from using it. From my understanding, if, for example, some project leader in Microsoft were to post the source code to something, and say, "here, this will make it easier to make your stuff interoperate", Microsoft could come by a year later and say, "oh, he was never given permission to do that, he violated his NDA, and all that stuff is trade secrets". I'm sure there's checks to make sure it isn't abused this blatantly, but I think you have hit on one of the biggest problems of trade secrets.
Re:MS Word format (Score:1)
Re:What's the difference between bleem! and DeCSS? (Score:3)
Drivers (Score:2)
What's the difference between bleem! and DeCSS? (Score:2)
Keith Kupferschmid, intellectual property counsel at the Software and Information Industry Association
I may be missing something here, but I don't see the distinction. PlayStation is a proprietary platform. PlayStation games were built to run on that platform. bleem! was written to allow people who had purchased a license to a PlayStation game to play it on some platform other than PlayStation.
DVD players are a proprietary platform (because of the "decryption" code they contain). DVD's are built (encoded) to be played on that platform. DeCSS was written to allow people who had purchased a license to a DVD movie to play it on some platform other than a commercial DVD player.
Am I missing something here?
Reverse engineering foundation like the EFF (Score:2)
I'd donate, and so perhaps donations could provide a cash and fame incentive for hackers to reverse engineer these attempts at bypassing our rights.
Projects like the cripple-free DivX box projects could also be aided by the foundation.
Lawyers would probably be needed as well
Anyone know, by chance, about MS Excel? (Score:2)
Re:MS Word format (Score:3)
The thing to realize about Microsoft releasing the Word spec is that they very carefully wanted to give 3rd Party vendors enough information to create DOC files that Word could open, *but not* information to open any DOC file that Word created. So what you see is a subset of information that Word is committed to support.
And as another sidenote on the Word issue, I imagine that Microsoft themselves has a few employees dedicated full time to 'reverse-engineering' the Word format when they plan a new release. Even MS has had interoperability problems (for example, Word 97 before the service pack).
--
Re:God says it's ok (Score:2)
If There Is A God, and if God Created Everything, then God Has The Patent On Everything, and since Patents Run Out After 17 Years, then The Patents On Everything Ran Out oo-17 Years Ago.
So invisibility belts, two-way neural communicator implants, and The Transporter, would all be public domain by now.
If I wasn't an Atheist.
--Blair
Re:God says it's ok (Score:3)
Re:Adobe's tight hold on PDF? (Score:2)
The sources are downloadable. GNU GhostScript is a GPL'ed version. There's also Aladdin GhostScript which is free for non-commercial use and a commercial version. Take a look here: http://www.cs.wisc.edu/~ghost/ [wisc.edu]
Re:Anyone know, by chance, about MS Excel? (Score:2)
Granted, writing the file directly has its drawbacks too, but there are undeniable benefits. For instance, when MS upgrades their interfaces, they frequently break things that are supposed to remain compatible, whereas the MS seems maintain a modicum of file interoperability. There is also the potential for vast speed increases, stability, straight forwardness for simple documents, portability (such as writing a lightweight graphical reporter in *nix), cost savings, not having to install MS Office, zero supervision, freedom from type libraries, dlls, etc.
Anyhow, I've read the basic BIFF specs before, but how about support for the more advanced features? Such as pivottables? filtering? charts? autosums? advanced formatting? etc etc. I don't necessarily _need_ all of these, but the more the better. I've been considering writing my own file level interface or object to handle a wide range of reports styles.
Reverse Engineering and Ethics (Score:3)
"The problem is that the common rules for ethics are flawed. There are weaknesses in the common rules for ethics because while they promote various virtues, they also promote weakness in the face of unethical behavior by others.
This is a problem, and opens a can of worms."
The chaos of the digital age leaves us grasping at straws. People are not following any specific set of rules beyond momentary personal convenience, which ultimately has lead to police states, burned out enviroments, fished-out oceans, etc etc etc.
In Reverse engineering, the same potential is there, but we are seeing it at another level, in another arena. It is a symptom of a larger situation.
Bottom Line, we need to get our shit together and work this out before it gets truely screwed up in the legal system (I know it already is screwed up, but it is not thoroughly entrenched yet)
Re:What's the difference between bleem! and DeCSS? (Score:2)
Re: Doesn't really matter (Score:4)
Compaq used clean room techniques because of what it was they were doing. When writing low level code, and it has to be bug compatible with something else, you're going to recreate the exact code that was in the original, because there's only so many ways to do something. Now copyright isn't like patents in what it protects. Patents protect the idea, even if you rediscover it. Copyright only protect a specific implementation. For a patent, it doesn't matter how you came up with the idea. On the other hand, for copyright, it only matters how you got the idea. If I get an idea for a poem, and come up with something that's nearly identical to some obscure Robert Frost piece, the courts would start with the presumption that since it's so similar, it must be a copy, but if I could prove that I had never read the poem, nor anything that referred to the poem, or had any knowledge that the poem existed, then my version would be mine. Probably this would make it even more of a pain for the next person to spontaneously come up with this poem.
With a patent, on the other hand, if I have a blinding flash in my algebra class and write down some patented algorithm, it's still infringing. It doesn't matter that I never heard of it.
Coming back to DeCSS, if the algorithm is obtained by disassembling the assembly, and then that algorithm is published in a natural language description, then the same author does an implementation in C, it's probably okay. The C isn't going to directly lift anything from the assembly except some of the tables. Given the principle that data cannot be copyrighted (you can't copyright the fact that your study shows that 53% of tech workers want to kill their boss), you could argue that the tables are also not a creative work.
The only issue of anonymous information is whether any of that may have come from people who have signed NDAs. Trade secrets are like patents (covering ideas) but with copyright style rules for when they apply (if you rediscover it, someone's trade secret doesn't apply).
Re:MS Word format (Score:2)
I have tried several times few months ago to write a small report and give it to a user with Office 97 - he couldn't open it.
Worse - some versions of Office 97 don't read other office 97 docs! try to send an english docs that was written with Hebrew/Arabic support to a user with Office 97 - he won't be able to read the docs (comes messy)
Reverse engineering in non-US jurisdictions (Score:3)
Two years ago an Australian court ruled reverse engineering to be lawful (Slashdot story, October 1999) [slashdot.org]. Other jurisdictions outside the US have given similar positive decisions.
MS Word format (Score:4)
What I'd like to have (Score:2)
Vested interests will ensure this doesn't happen (Score:3)
rr
Supreme Court... (Score:2)
Re:Anyone know, by chance, about MS Excel? (Score:2)
Do you think that approach would be enlightening at all? I haven't studied the BIFF specs at all, other then to determine the scope of the documentation. And I certainly haven't put any real time understanding it. It's just been a thought thus far...
Re:MS Word format (Score:2)
Well, that clears that up, then. (Score:3)
He draws a line between the Reimerdes and Connectix cases by quoting that Reimerdes "didn't have a right to the DVD". Did he steal it? More confusion.
Anyway, it seems the 9th Circuit gets overturned all the time, so I wouldn't get too hopeful about this being a positive sign.
Have you forgotten already? (Score:3)
No, because Auntie EULA forbids it, and she'll get uncle Bill and uncle Steve to watch over you if you even try.
Re:Reverse engineering an issue for .NET (Score:2)
Sun hasn't done anything at all about this, they just completely ignore the issue as far as I've seen.
Maybe I'm just an overly idealistic Slashdot weenie, but I don't see a problem here. In my humble opinion, a user should be able to decompile and examine any code that will be running on his/her machine. Otherwise, every time you run a program, you are trusting the safety and security of your computer, your data, and your network to a pig-in-a-poke.
Re:What's the difference between bleem! and DeCSS? (Score:3)
That is "common knoweldge" yes, but I'm starting to question if that's true in this day and age. Sony is a massive company, they build a lot of things and obtain others in huge quantities.
To say that they're selling it at a loss is a huge leap of faith. I'd like to see proof of this.
Re:God says it's ok (Score:3)
Re:We have forgotten the IBM PC (Score:3)
How was the IBM PC reverse engineered?
IBM sold technical specs, bus pinouts, BIOS ROM assembler source code and other data regarding the first IBM PC, sold in 1980. This was widely available information. I had an IBM binder with all of these items until it was lost in a move a couple years ago.
IBM was following in the footsteps of Apple ][, which went so far as to publish the schematics of all of their Apple and Apple ][ computers. It was an OPEN architecture.
IBM knew that the only way to make the machine catch on was to get any hobbyist with a breadboard to make cool new cards to fit inside.
Now, Compaq rewrote the BIOS from scratch, taking only the interrupt table and register content "API" for compatibility. Since they had an open book with the original source code, that's not "reverse engineering," that's "re-engineering."
Franklin copied Apple's ROMs verbatim, and were toasted in court for copyright violations.
Re:Reverse Engineering file formats (Score:2)
This seems highly unlikely, as I long ago proved that quite a few MS file formats cannot be reverse engineered (see my out-of-print book Reversed Engineering Undocumented Windows File Formats - It Can't Be Done!)"
From a patent perspective... (Score:3)
Before Mr. Edison made his new and improved telephone, there was an older version (which, I'm sure, had a patent on it). In order for him to make his own telephone, he either would have to work from scratch, get the details from the company/patent, or get a license. Patents exist, of course, to give the original creator money in compensation for his/her efforts. If a creator does not let others gain access to the technology, a monopoly is essentially created. Should patents be ignored under such circumstances (so we could have a better telephone for example)?
Whether or not this situation is historically accurate, is it right to do this? (unless there's some stupid patent on the whole concept which happens too much these days anyways)
about reverse engineering (Score:2)
wouldn't that basically nuke the RIAA and MPAA back to the stone age???
========================
63,000 bugs in the code, 63,000 bugs,
ya get 1 whacked with a service pack,
Re:That's not a bug, that's a feature (Score:2)
Anyways, the requirement that I both install Excel (and all it's dlls) and have a printer installed is sufficient reason to want to avoid COM in certain instances. In one such scenario, I'd like to run it unattended on a server--possibly even on *Nix. In the other, we use it within a widely distributed database application. When the latest and "greatest" Excel version comes out for those applications, we either force the user to use the more outdated version, constantly upgrade and recompile for the latest version, or do other such things--none of which are convenient and reliable. It's been my experience that, while the latest Excel file format may change, they maintain a large amount of backwards compatibility. When the user needs to edit and save, we don't care if they save in the latest format or not.
The bottom line is that while COM may be good for many things, it has serious drawbacks that can be better answered by other solutions.
Re:Reverse engineering an issue for .NET (Score:2)
Java is in pretty much the same boat with regards to decompilation. There are Java compilers that can take .class files and spit out valid and VERY readable Java source code (basically you only lose the comments and the original names of any member-local variables). Sun hasn't done anything at all about this, they just completely ignore the issue as far as I've seen. There are obfuscators that do a pretty good job of confusing the available automatic decompilers, but none of them are from Sun or officially sanctioned (and they tend to cause 'odd' Java code which seems more likely to break JVMs).
Of course, Java has been primarily a server side technology, so its not as much of an issue... With .NET Microsoft is currently targetting the server mainly but I agree it will be interesting to see what happens in the future. Will they actually release an MSIL of Office 11 (or whatever), knowing that it could be decompiled into fairly readable C#? Not likely.
Re:God says it's ok (Score:2)
There is no need for a lawsuit. The threat of nuclear war and incurable man-made disease is enough.
Reverse engineering an issue for .NET (Score:3)
My understanding is that all
As of Visual Studio Beta 1, MS were non-committal on how they were going to handle reverse-engineering issues, since it's a whole heap easier to do that now than ever (well, ever since VB 2, anyway, which also wrote out its code in the clear).
Presumably they will have to come up with a strategy that lets the developer target x86 at build time, rather than MSIL...?
Cheers
Alastair
What is being done to protect our rights? (Score:3)
Also, how enforceable has the DMCA been? There are lots of activities that could fall under its protection that have not yet been shut down. For example, those in the emulation world have just figured out how to break CPS2 encryption used in many modern Capcom arcade games. It seems that this would be illegal under the DMCA. How many times has it been put to use against reverse engineers / hackers?
Captain_Frisk
God says it's ok (Score:4)
What's the difference between bleem! and DeCSS? (Score:5)
"The Reimerdes case dealt with somebody who didn't have a right to the DVD but was cracking through it to get the code, whereas the Connectix case dealt with a situation where a company was legally entitled to be using the code and reverse-engineering it for purposes of interoperability."
Keith Kupferschmid, intellectual property counsel at the Software and Information Industry Association
I may be missing something here, but I don't see the distinction. PlayStation is a proprietary platform. PlayStation games were built to run on that platform. bleem! was written to allow people who had purchased a license to a PlayStation game to play it on some platform other than PlayStation.
DVD players are a proprietary platform (because of the "decryption" code they contain). DVD's are built (encoded) to be played on that platform. DeCSS was written to allow people who had purchased a license to a DVD movie to play it on some platform other than a commercial DVD player.
Am I missing something here?
--Kaos
Is this just a misunderstanding? (Score:2)
-Moondog
Reverse Engineering -- A Unique Opportunity. (Score:4)
RE presents a unique opportunity: A facility for determining a natural expiration on copyright.
The duration of copyright is arbitrary. Some have suggested that the duration of copyright for software be shortened, but it would still be arbitrary.
Unlike music, literature, and other copyrighted works, software has a distinquishing property. It is possible to create a program that works exactly as the original without copying the original.
Thus, the time that it takes to reverse engineer a piece of software establishes a natural duration for the copyright on the original. This is not to say that we should revoke copyright on the original once a RE has occured. It simply says that RE renders the copyright on the original somewhat moot. If the RE product is distributed gratis, the money value of the original copyright is eliminated.
To a certain extent, this is already the way things are. So, if RE is legal (so long as it doesn't involve actual reuse of copyrighted code) I have no problem with it. Under such circumstances, the Free Software community takes on the job of establishing the natural duration of copyright in a free market.
Of course now I will probably hear from some people who don't believe in a natural right to IP; but I do, and so do a lot of other people. It is unlikely we will ever agree on that issue, but perhaps we can agree to RE as a standard for limiting copyright.
Re:We have forgotten the IBM PC (Score:2)
Ironically, IBM Microelectronics (a different division than the PC group) was under a court order to cheaply licence all patents it held. This meant that most "clones" used and still use IBM-licenced technology, prime examples being the ISA bus and VGA video. IBM gets a couple bucks back for every non-IBM PC sold, so they aren't complaining too much about it.
--
Re:Have you forgotten already? (Score:2)
Where its allowed to reverse engeneer to make 2 programs work together
Reverse Engineering file formats (Score:5)
In fact, MS tried to hire me to provide them with the specs for one of their file formats. Apparently the author of the code never documented the file format. MS had released specs for it, but they were completely wrong.
After being told by several friends that MS was notorious for delaying payment with contractors, I asked for half the money up-front. They refused and I never did the work.
But I digress. I reverse engineered a number of file formats that were "proprietary" Microsoft files. If they're going to go after anyone for it, surely they would have gone after me since I was publishing them left and right in magazines and my book.
I've figured ever since then that MS must have known that the whole thing about reverse engineering in their licenses must be unenforceable.
You can also look at all the work Andrew Schulman and Matt Pietrek did reverse engineering Windows code and the PE file format and neither of them ever got hassled either, as far as I know.
Pete Davis