Greg Broiles wrote:
> At 09:50 AM 3/20/00, Ed Gerck wrote:
> >"Reverse engineering" is done with the intent to break the protection built
> >into the product, between the user and the technology behind the software.
> >If this is done for your own private purposes and you tell no one, there is
> >not even a way for the producer to reach you. However, if you are
> >Microsoft and you reverse engineer code of a competitor (as MS did, with
> >Stac -- 1994) and stealthly use it in your own Microsoft product (as MS
> >did, in its DoubleSpace product) ... then, is that OK? Should that breach of
> >privacy be allowed?
>
> The Ninth Circuit seems to think so; but they've got a different view of
> patent infringement, which is what was going on in the _Stac v Microsoft_
> case, so your example is likely to lead to only confusion and fuzzy
> thinking, if you're trying to mix up privacy, trade secrets, and patent
> law. You're also stomping around in the area where it's worthwhile to
> think about the Digital Millennium Copyright Act (vis-a-vis monkeying with
> copy protection) and contract law (as it regards to the enforceability of
> shrinkwrap licenses limiting one's right to reverse-engineer) and maybe
> even UETA/UCITA (ditto), and traditional copyright fair use.
>
> This is not an area of the law where you can draw useful conclusions based
> on information you get from mass media.
I agree with you. But I venture that in the quagmire seem to be in (and you
well reflect the conflicting views above), I prefer to see the logic of ethics
rather than the logic of power reflected for example in the Digital Millennium
Copyright Act that supports Disney Studios to tell me that I cannot skip
their commercials in the DVD I bought.
Further, what this thread is about is whether CB's product could be rigthfully
decompiled and the results published to the world, to obtain either fame or
money (profiting thereby, in any case). While we have evidence that
decompiling is allowed by US federal law and in Norway (for example),
we also see evidence in Microsoft's defeat in Stac that decompiling *and
then* using the results for profit is not allowed.
The logic of ethics show me that this is not socially responsible either,
because it would provide an incentive to crime -- stealing, to be precise,
for a profit.
Cheers,
Ed Gerck
