>
> Brian Lane <nexus@ESKIMO.COM> wrote:
> > Another company copied the pcb (the layout is important to its correct
> > operation, so they couldn't change it much), and our code.
> [...]
> >   This is an example of unethical reverse engineering, but it doesn't
> > mean that all reverse engineering is bad. In my opinion, as long as
> > the information gained is not DIRECTLY used for commercial gain then
> > its okay. If these folks had figured out how the product had worked
>
> Brian,
>
> The example you give is *not* reverse engineering.  It is copyright
> infringement, plain and simple.

Agreed that it isn't reverse engineering, but copyright infringement?
on the PCB, the code or both? And does there have to be an explict
notice on either item?

> Proper reverse engineering is not illegal (and I would claim it is also not
> unethical), even when used for commercial gain.

Again agreed. Reverse engineering isn't the issue here.

OK Eric, I'm now convinced that hiding code breaking techniques is a
bad idea for all these reasons (and more):

- Gives a false sense of security. This is a biggie because if code
  protection isn't really secure then it's worse that leaving code
  in the open because one won't look for code security that has been
  breached.
- Code protected by other means - specifically copyright right?
- Sometimes code needs to be updated or changed and original author is
  either not available or not willing to share source.

OK, so how does one do it? I think it's a given that 16C84 are easy to
break conisdering all these smart cards for the satellites. How about the
EPROM based PICs.

It seems this discussion has come to a dead end, let's get to the nitty
gritty so that we can really protect our code if we need to...

BAJ