----------
> From: Eric Smith <eric@BROUHAHA.COM>
> To: PICLIST@MITVMA.MIT.EDU
> Subject: Re: decoding service
> Date: Thursday, May 28, 1998 7:41 PM
>
> Chris Eddy <ceddy@NB.NET> writes:
> > But breaking open my product and removing the methods of how that
device
> > operates in the name of 'speedy research and development' is stealing
my
> > intelectual property.  If some company puts tons of time and effort
into
> > making a device that is real cool, like a hammer that detects studs
(true
> > app that a friend is involved with) you would certainly be incenced by
> > someone who studies the code and says, "Oh, you have a such and such
> > waveform and look for the such and such event on the return".  They
> > figure that they can emulate the process, while not copying the code
> > outright, and they haven't done something wrong.  I beg to differ.
>
> Here we encounter the difference between law and ethics.  The situation
you
> describe is not inherently unlawful.  Different people will have varying
> opinions on whether it is unethical.
>
> US law does not prohibit reverse-engineering in the sense you describe.
It
> only prohibits manufacture and sale of a product derived in this manner
in
> three cases:
>
> 1)  The first company had a patent on the technique, which the second
>     company infringes.
>
> 2)  The second company relied on additional information which they
obtained
>     in an unlawful manner.  For instance, the first company might
consider
>     the method to be a trade secret, but the second company hires an
>     ex-employee of the first company who tells them how it works.
>
> 3)  The second company violates an NDA or other contract with the first
>     company, and uses information from the first company for purposes
>     prohibited by the contract.
>
> Cheers,
> Eric

Eric:

I have had others hire away my employees and take my technology.  I know of
another case where the entire staff of a small was hired (BOUGHT?) by a
larger company whose purpose was to start a new compant to slightly modify
and resell the main software product, and grab their market share and
customer base. That small company collapsed into a one man business
supporting an existing smaller product.   I have struggled with this
question from the side of the injured party.  It is so important to talk
about these issues because they are far reaching and go far beyond legal
and even moral issues, extending, perhaps, into the social and cultural
fabric of a society.  But, in any case, we are always faced with a choice.
Do we set limits on what we are willing to usurp?  And how should we define
those limits?  I have to admit that I have read some thoughtful and
reasonable positions on both sides of this "controversy" right here on this
list.

Thank you.

Richard