Am 28.10.2011 05:31, schrieb Chante:
Daniel Gibson wrote:
Am 26.10.2011 23:52, schrieb Steven Schveighoffer:
On Wed, 26 Oct 2011 17:51:11 -0400, Daniel Gibson
<metalcae...@gmail.com> wrote:
Am 26.10.2011 23:38, schrieb Steven Schveighoffer:
But it's much harder to reverse engineer how someone built a
machine than it is to reverse engineer how software is built.
Really?
I guess it depends on the machine but I imagine it isn't so hard to
dismantle a machine to find out how it works? (But I have no
experience with that, it's just a guess)
Reverse Engineering software can be pretty hard if the author made
it deliberately hard, like Skype.
If you have no idea how a material is built, such as a new kind of
glass, you have to guess.
Ok, for materials it's probably hard, but there is a possibility of
chemical analysis and stuff like that.
But I guess for things like e.g. car engines it may be easier (besides
maybe special/new materials used).
It's not worth it. If a company is relying on a competitor's engines to
develop it's own, it's effectively out of the business of engineering
(it's just then a manufacturer of other company's products perhaps).
Competitive analyis is fine, but a company cannot be in the engine
business without the required engineering prowess required for that.
I don't know.
I guess you could claim the same thing about companies who have to steal
code from other companies instead of writing it themselves.
So what's the difference between "competitive analysis" and "looking at
foreign code" anyway?
How can you be sure that your engineers don't copy ideas from
competitors engines?
Cheers,
- Daniel
