Return to BSD News archive
Path: euryale.cc.adfa.oz.au!newshost.anu.edu.au!newshost.dca.gov.au!news.mel.aone.net.au!inferno.mpx.com.au!news.unimelb.EDU.AU!munnari.OZ.AU!news.ecn.uoknor.edu!solace!nntp.uio.no!news.cais.net!news.jsums.edu!gatech!newsfeed.internetmci.com!solaris.cc.vt.edu!not-for-mail From: erik@fenris.campus.vt.edu () Newsgroups: comp.os.linux.development.apps,comp.os.linux.development.system,comp.os.linux.x,comp.os.linux.hardware,comp.os.linux.setup,comp.unix.bsd.386bsd.misc,comp.unix.bsd.bsdi.misc,comp.unix.bsd.netbsd.misc,comp.unix.bsd.freebsd.misc Subject: Re: Why to not buy Matrox Millennium Followup-To: comp.os.linux.development.apps,comp.os.linux.development.system,comp.os.linux.x,comp.os.linux.hardware,comp.os.linux.setup,comp.unix.bsd.386bsd.misc,comp.unix.bsd.bsdi.misc,comp.unix.bsd.netbsd.misc,comp.unix.bsd.freebsd.misc Date: 29 Mar 1996 06:47:55 GMT Organization: A random machine somewhere Lines: 22 Message-ID: <4jg12r$4b8@solaris.cc.vt.edu> References: <4j21ph$crr@slappy.cs.utexas.edu> <4j7dg2$t3t@moacs11.moacs.indiv.nl.net> <4j8s8a$q8b@newstand.syr.edu> <4j93n1$4jj@solaris.cc.vt.edu> <4jagsn$6bo@news1.halcyon.com> NNTP-Posting-Host: fenris.campus.vt.edu NNTP-Posting-User: erik X-Newsreader: TIN [UNIX 1.3 950824BETA PL0] Xref: euryale.cc.adfa.oz.au comp.os.linux.development.apps:13802 comp.os.linux.development.system:20229 comp.os.linux.x:27916 comp.os.linux.hardware:34707 comp.os.linux.setup:47802 comp.unix.bsd.386bsd.misc:347 comp.unix.bsd.bsdi.misc:2846 comp.unix.bsd.netbsd.misc:2626 comp.unix.bsd.freebsd.misc:16220 Tim Smith (tzs@coho.halcyon.com) wrote: : In article <4j93n1$4jj@solaris.cc.vt.edu>, <erik@fenris.campus.vt.edu> wrote: : However, this part is just plain wrong. Assuming for the sake of argument : that reverse engineering is fair use (a more accurate statement would be : that it *can* *be* fair use, and in the Matrox case, based on the facts My understanding is that it was in general fair use. : presented so far, probably would be), that doesn't mean that a contract : could not forbid it. Giving up the right to do something that you are : otherwise legally entitled to do, in fact, is one of the classic things : you can do in a contract as consideration for what you receive from the : other side. I should have meant a _shrink wrap_ contract cannot forbid reverse engineering. This is because you have already obtained the product at this time, and you don't sign anything to accept that you will follow the contract. I have yet to read of a legal decision regarding shrink wrap contracts. Yes, if you signed the contract not to reverse engineer, then you would be in violation if you did. Thank you for the clarification.