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.
