Return to BSD News archive
Xref: sserve comp.sys.ibm.pc.hardware:33189 comp.unix.bsd:6361 comp.org.eff.talk:9442 Path: sserve!manuel.anu.edu.au!munnari.oz.au!constellation!mimbres.cs.unm.edu!moe.ksu.ksu.edu!zaphod.mps.ohio-state.edu!darwin.sura.net!spool.mu.edu!agate!curtis From: curtis@cs.berkeley.edu (Curtis Yarvin) Newsgroups: comp.sys.ibm.pc.hardware,comp.unix.bsd,comp.org.eff.talk Subject: Re: Question on Diamond Clock Synthesizer Date: 11 Oct 1992 15:41:01 GMT Organization: CS Dept. Snakepit - Do Not Feed. Lines: 26 Distribution: inet Message-ID: <1b9hudINNmv1@agate.berkeley.edu> References: <1b7tmgINNi06@agate.berkeley.edu> <1992Oct11.045446.1020@fcom.cc.utah.edu> <Bvy0H3.Lwq@mudos.ann-arbor.mi.us> NNTP-Posting-Host: adder.cs.berkeley.edu In article <Bvy0H3.Lwq@mudos.ann-arbor.mi.us> mju@mudos.ann-arbor.mi.us (Marc Unangst) writes: >In article <1992Oct11.045446.1020@fcom.cc.utah.edu> terry@cs.weber.edu (A Wizard of Earth C) writes: >>"Batman" posted a message (id <4356bw@gotham.city>) disclosing a clock set >>algorithm for Diamond. Sorry I didn't save it, but it's possibly illegal >>to distribute. It may have been accidently archived somewhere. It will > >It isn't illegal to distribute any more. Diamond has claimed that the >method for setting their dot clocks is protected by trade secret laws. >Unfortuantely, in order for something to be a trade secret, it has to >be just that -- secret. And, also, I didn't think reverse-engineering was illegal in this country. After all, for distribution of a trade secret to be illegal the distributor has to be under nondisclosure contract to the originator - and you certainly don't sign anything like a contract when you buy a Diamond card. If "Batman" had contracted with Diamond to do a driver under the conditions that he not release the clock set algorithm, then Diamond would certainly have every right to go after him. If he just discovered it by looking at the driver, then their only weapon could be a patent - and I do doubt that Diamond has patented their clock set algorithm. Can any of the legal eagles out there correct or verify this reasoning? c