From: David Sternlight <david@sternlight.com>
To: “Peter D. Junger” <a-billol@microsoft.com>
Message Hash: 64de87b1610790014542b378bad8ae6754bd44617f1ffda64824c5a6fb930fab
Message ID: <v03007614ae16d4a73f54@[192.187.162.15]>
Reply To: <c=US%a=_%p=msft%l=RED-16-MSG-960719175739Z-29104@tide19.microsoft.com>
UTC Datetime: 1996-07-20 20:45:15 UTC
Raw Date: Sun, 21 Jul 1996 04:45:15 +0800
From: David Sternlight <david@sternlight.com>
Date: Sun, 21 Jul 1996 04:45:15 +0800
To: "Peter D. Junger" <a-billol@microsoft.com>
Subject: Re: Reverse Engineer
In-Reply-To: <c=US%a=_%p=msft%l=RED-16-MSG-960719175739Z-29104@tide19.microsoft.com>
Message-ID: <v03007614ae16d4a73f54@[192.187.162.15]>
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain
At 8:14 AM -0700 7/20/96, Peter D. Junger wrote:
>"Bill Olson (EDP)" writes:
>
>: Reverse engineering is process of 'mimicking' the specifications of
>: another product by copying the 'abstract interface' of it. Example:
>:
>: I write a desktop application that greatly increases employee
>: productivity, and it sells like hotcakes. Another company decides that I
>: am gaining too much market share with my product and decides to reverse
>: engineer the product so that they can create a competing product. They
>: hire an engineer who takes the program and analyzes the input and output
>: with a detailed script of test patterns (heaven forbid he might even
>: decompile the program and snoop). By doing so, he now has a complete
>: product specification minus the implementation (i.e. how it works). He
>: then takes the product specification and gives it to another engineer
>: (actually it's done through 'clean' liaisons) who then creates a product
>: that does the exact same thing as mine--but with a different
>: implementation process. Because the product copies the specification and
>: not the implementation, it does not infringe on copyrights or patents.
>
>Good explanation. But note that reverse engineering is not a way of
>getting around patent violations. It only works to protect oneself from
>copyright violations, since a reverse-engineered product is not
>(arguably) a copy of the original. It is also useful when the actual
>workings of the original, or the way the original is made, is a (trade)
>secret.
Important comment.
Further, as I understand it if an implementation is obvious to one
practiced in the art, one's ability to protect such an implementation is
also limited.
David
Return to July 1996
Return to ““Peter D. Junger” <junger@pdj2-ra.F-REMOTE.CWRU.Edu>”