Return to BSD News archive
Path: euryale.cc.adfa.oz.au!newshost.anu.edu.au!harbinger.cc.monash.edu.au!news.rmit.EDU.AU!news.unimelb.EDU.AU!munnari.OZ.AU!spool.mu.edu!usenet.eel.ufl.edu!news-feed-1.peachnet.edu!paperboy.wellfleet.com!news3.near.net!news.ner.bbnplanet.net!news.mathworks.com!newsfeed.internetmci.com!portal.gmu.edu!ccooney1 From: ccooney1@site.gmu.edu (Christopher M Cooney (CS)) Newsgroups: comp.os.linux.development.system,comp.unix.bsd.386bsd.misc,comp.unix.bsd.bsdi.misc,comp.unix.bsd.netbsd.misc,comp.unix.bsd.freebsd.misc,comp.os.linux.advocacy Subject: Re: Historic Opportunity facing Free Unix (was Re: The Lai/Baker paper, benchmarks, and the world of free UNIX) Followup-To: comp.os.linux.development.system,comp.unix.bsd.386bsd.misc,comp.unix.bsd.bsdi.misc,comp.unix.bsd.netbsd.misc,comp.unix.bsd.freebsd.misc,comp.os.linux.advocacy Date: 12 May 1996 02:47:31 GMT Organization: George Mason University, Fairfax, Virginia, USA Lines: 36 Message-ID: <4n3jg3$9ha@portal.gmu.edu> References: <NELSON.96Apr15010553@ns.crynwr.com> <31866E12.67FD83BE@lambert.org> <4m8k99$o12@master.di.fc.ul.pt> <318978E8.14B8@vfr.interceptor.com> <4mmhcj$dfr@news1.halcyon.com> <31901BFD.7BAC@vfr.interceptor.com> NNTP-Posting-Host: 129.174.40.83 Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=US-ASCII Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit X-Newsreader: TIN [version 1.2 PL2] Xref: euryale.cc.adfa.oz.au comp.os.linux.development.system:23613 comp.unix.bsd.386bsd.misc:948 comp.unix.bsd.bsdi.misc:3734 comp.unix.bsd.netbsd.misc:3592 comp.unix.bsd.freebsd.misc:19229 comp.os.linux.advocacy:49030 Thumper! (thumper@vfr.interceptor.com) wrote: : Tim Smith wrote: : > : > Thumper! <thumper@vfr.interceptor.com> wrote: : > >Even if you own the product, it is ILLEGAL for you to use that information to : > >engineer your own product, whether it be compatible or not (ie, using the : > >information to learn from is illegal as well). : > : > [I'm assuming United States law in this posting] : > : > In general, this is incorrect. If you don't want someone to be able to : > legally reverse engineer your product, you've got to get them to : > contractually agree to not reverse engineer it. For non-software : > products, there is not much you can do to stop reverse engineering, : > except get patents to cover the essentials of your product, or make : > sure that you are careful who you sell to. If it's going to be a mass : > marketed product that any schmoe can go and buy at the supermarket or : > hardware store, patents are about the only protection you can hope : > for. : That would sadly imply that software is unprotectable. Commercial software, GNU, : GPL, etc, are meaningless, because it's therefore legal to take someone's product, : take it apart to see how it works, and then derive your own work partially, or even : entirely, from that work, and proceed to legally sell your own work. That would : also apply to hardware as well; just take apart an Intel CPU, make a copy, and : build your own. After all, why should patents offer protection that copyright : doesn't? NO. if you take apart the cpu and use the info to write a program, that's legal. if you use the info to make a cpu (and copy the microcode) that's illegal. if you copy the instruction set and roll your own hardware, that's legal. understand yet? -chris