I have never contributed to this list (on thread or off), but since this
seems to be an ongoing issue, I'll add my 2.549 cents (US).

First and foremost, let me say that I have been involved in reverse
engineering projects which were intended to do more than just educate...

As an example, back in '89-91 I worked for a company which reverse
engineered the Nintendo Entertainment system (NES, the first really
*biig* console (home) game machine Nintendo did.) to develop games. This
is significant because Nintendo held several U.S. patents which were
designed specifically to keep competitors from developing games for the
machine.

Patent 1) A "keychip" (small microcontroller, not PIC) was located on
each game cartridge, and talked to a controller in the game machine. If
the two didn't speak the same language (so to speak), the game wouldn't
play.
Patent 2) The shape of the cartridge (a D-shell with a PCB edge connector)

They also, I believe, had several other patents, but they did not as
directly effect us.

Fortunately, our head engineer was able to discover a way around the
keychip which did not violate the patent, and we simply made slim
cartridges which were not D shaped, but would still fit in the machine.

Now, several companies had tried to make "un-licensed" games, including
ATARI. All of them were successfully sued by Nintendo.

We were not. Nintendo several times made modifications to their hardware
to attempt to block our cartridges from working, and each time we were able
to compensate. In other words, it was an unfriendly relationship. Since we
did not use a keychip, or anything which could be loosely termed a keychip
(in fact we used analog circuitry to disable the checking, hard to claim
a passive analog circuit is a microcontroller), they had no handle on us.

BUT.. was it immoral? Well, obviously I'm biased, but probably not.
Nintendo has since been investigated several time by the FTC for
anti-trust violations, top executives at several large toy
retail chains were quoted on camera stating that Nintendo had "hinted
that if non-Nintendo games were sold, there might be supply shortages
which would effect delivery of licensed games to those stores.", Nintendo
game sales at the time amounted to something like 60% of the Christmas
revenue for the large toy stores... I.E. About 40% of the total revenue...
A big fly-swatter to swing at such a little fly. It worked --  The only
people that ever bought games from us were Video rental stores which (as a
previous post mentioned) were already fighting with Nintendo Et. Al. over
renting games.

There are cases when the tools intended to protect free enterprise and
the development of new technologies are abused by people with very good
lawyers. We managed to stay out of court by having a very talented
engineer who was able to bypass the security features without violating
the legal protections associated, but if a suit had been brought by
Nintendo, we would have closed down and been "squashed like a bug."


On Fri, 29 May 1998, Mark Devin Newland wrote:

> 3) I'm building a device and have a portion of it that I am having problems
> with.  I know of a another device that does something completely
> different than my device but a small portion fits my needs.  I will reverse
> engineer that block.

Actually, I must say that this (to me) violates both the letter and the
spirit of the laws involved. If I need a car, I am not allowed to just
*take* one. I need to either buy one, or convince somebody who has one
that they should let me use it -- If I need a snippet of source code or a
bit of hardware, the same restrictions apply. Fortunately (or un), the
default conditions are reversed. (the intellectual property must be
specifically claimed, and ownership has been deemed temporary, unlike the
car where once you build/buy it, its yours until you specifically give it
away.), the moral implications of taking the car or taking the design are
identical. It is theft. Additionally, the idea that it makes a difference
that the product you are stealing from is not a direct competitor to yours
leaves me a bit cold. Is this like saying that it is OK to steal car
parts, as long as you will be using them in a boat?

Everything in intellectual property discussions is made difficult by the
lack of a tangible asset, but to the extent that we honor the idea that an
idea has value, and it's creator should be able to be the sole collector
of that value (for some time at least), then we must treat the idea as a
real item.

> However, in the situation of taking something (such as a VCR as was
> suggested), adding something to it, and then reselling it would not be
> a problem in my opinion.  After all, VAR's (Value Added Resellers)
> do this all the time.  In fact, I support it.  If you can sell more Sony
> VCR's (even tho they are modified), Sony still makes the money from
> its product and even increases its sales by that many units.  VAR's
> are a nessicary part of todays business.  Just make sure you re-sell the
> product as a VAR.

This is almost exactly what we were doing when we made games for the
Nintendo machine...  You must be careful of *how* you add accessories, or
make modifications, but it is legal.

There is no car maker on the planet who could keep after-market accessories
off of their cars using (the old) the intellectual properties laws (of the
U.S., anyway.). Instead they must convince the states to bar modifications
for other reasons.

Now, the new copyright law... Well, it don't seem right to me... But
I'll spare everybody the torture of my pontification on that subject.

All trademarks property of their respective owners.

"I would like it to be know that the exhibits we have shown are exclusively
our own...", or however that song goes.

=============================================================================
Jon Valesh - Implementor    |
  the Valesh group          |   Witty quote available upon request.
mailto:jon@valesh.com       |
http://www.valesh.com/~jon  |
=============================================================================