Mark Willis <mwillis@NWLINK.COM> wrote:
> Another point is that MIT isn't likely to continue to host this list if
> we go into too gray an area of technology, much less illegal areas
> involving theft of intellectual property, etc.

I disagree with your assessment that reading code-protected PICs is
inherently theft of intellectual property.  If my lawn mower or toaster
has a housing held on by special security screws, would you argue that
removing the screws and studying the mechanism is theft?

I've reverse-engineered many devices in the past in order to learn how
they worked.  The courts have upheld that this is a legal activity, and
in fact that software licenses that prohibit it are unenforceable.  (The
most recent case I'm familiar with is Sega vs. Accolade).

Similarly, it is entirely legal for a person to reverse-engineer the
product in order to modify or improve the product.  If I want to improve
my lawn mower or toaster, I think you'd agree that I'm within my rights.
I claim that the same is true for microcontroller-based devices.  In fact,
I actually have made some improvements to several items of consumer
electronics.

I did *not*, however, steal the code in the sense of programming the
same code (or even derived code) into other products and selling them.
That would clearly be copyright infringement.

I think it's unfair to assume that Edward was going to steal the code;
he didn't say what he was planning to do with the code.

> I declare this thread DEAD DEAD DEAD, in other words.

A bit presumptuous, aren't we?

Eric