Messages in this thread | | | Date | Mon, 12 Oct 1998 10:17:29 -0400 (EDT) | From | Vladimir Dergachev <> | Subject | Re: Reverse engineering (was ...UDI...) |
| |
On Sat, 10 Oct 1998, John Alvord wrote:
> On Fri, 9 Oct 1998, Kenneth Albanowski wrote: > > > > > [There have been several statements along these lines. Here's just one of > > them:] > > > > On Fri, 9 Oct 1998, Ely Wilson wrote: > > > > > Does this mean that you in Europe could disassembler a binary, then modify > > > it so it reatins it's general function, email it to us americans modified > > > thus saving us the desparity of being prosecuted :) i think so. > > > > > > Also, federal laws protect patent/copyright. It is *NOT* forbidden to > > > dissassemble a source. Take a system BIOS for instance, to replicate a > > > BIOS you would do (and it HAS been done) a complete dissassemble, then > > > write down EVERYTHING it does, BUT NO CODE (yes I am leaving out details) > > > > With respect, this was ages ago. (Compaq). A lot of water has passed under > > that bridge, and some more recent decisions have occurred that complicate > > matters. At least, as a layman, I believe matters have been complicated > > enough that I don't trust myself to judge safely what the current > > situation is -- and I'd advise others not to. If no-one actually knows for > > certain, I'd suggest that the FSF, or Redhat, or one of the other groups > > should retain council, pay a lawyer to try and determine the actual > > current status of reverse engineering in the US -- and then write this up > > for everyone's use. > > > > (My rationale? The Stac vs. Microsoft decision. As I understood it, this > > determined that Stac misappropriated Microsoft's trade secrets by reverse > > engineering Microsoft's code. I don't understand this. Moreover, it is > > effectively a nonsense statement, according to my understanding of the > > definition of "trade secrets". Hence, I'm not going to trust anyone but a > > lawyer to determine what this actually means -- if anything.) > > Small correction: STAC won over Microsoft, Microsoft had to remove > doubledisk support, Microsoft had to pay several million US dollars in > compensation. >
This was the original suit. Afterwards Microsoft filed a countersuit, which MS won. (but got less money). This countersuit is what Kenneth was refering to.
Volodya Dergachev
> Of course the legal conclusion could be the same either way. > > john alvord > > > - > To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-kernel" in > the body of a message to majordomo@vger.rutgers.edu > Please read the FAQ at http://www.tux.org/lkml/ >
- To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-kernel" in the body of a message to majordomo@vger.rutgers.edu Please read the FAQ at http://www.tux.org/lkml/
| |