>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.
>
Well said. I think the legality of shrink-wrap contracts is just waiting
for someone with either enough money or enough determination to challenge
their legality up to the appropriate level (maybe even the Supreme Court).
(Money can be substituted for determination, but it's not a 1:1 ratio -- it
takes more money than determination.) If you have signed a physical
contract stating that you won't reverse-engineer a software product, the
publisher has much stronger rights against you than if the shrink-wrap
license states that you can't reverse-engineer the software product. This
argument probably also applies to the "contract-upon-installation" where you
must agree to the terms printed in the dialog box before the software
installation will finish.
There's also an "original intent" argument here, in that the framers of the
Constitution never intended that IP holders have all rights forever over
their intellectual property -- and I state this as someone whose livelihood
depends on intellectual property protections as embodied in patent, trade
secret, and trademark law ("RCA" is the one of the most recognized
trademarks in the United States).
===============================================
Mark Leighton Fisher [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Thomson Consumer Electronics Indianapolis IN
"Their walls are built of cannon balls,
Their motto is `Don't tread on me.`"
