HP had a copyright query/response in their printer memory cards about 1990.
They never implemented a restriction on operation though - this was about
the time that IBM was getting hit with restraint of trade suits from
StorageTech (was it?).  I believe IBM was refusing to provide support to
mainframe systems that had StorageTech (IBM clone) drive systems hung on
them.

We reverse-engineered the card (properly - I know that another *major*
after-market memory supplier copied the code), and 'encrypted' the HP
copyright in our ROM.  If queried, the microcontroller decrypted and sent
the 'copyright'.  (The decryption key just happened to be our copyright.)
Our story was to be that it was just a bit stream to us, but HP never
pressed the subject.

Gary Crowell
Micron Technology



-----Original Message-----
From: Andrew Kunz [mailto:akunz@TDIPOWER.COM]
Sent: Monday, May 15, 2000 9:15 AM
To: PICLIST@MITVMA.MIT.EDU
Subject: Re: [OT] When is a protocol proprietary?


In order for a device to work on our network, it needs to do the following,
which is kinda neat.  The protocol is pure ASCII, so it's very readable to
anybody watching the party line (RS-485).  The master assigns addresses for
communication, and auto-detects them.  By default, a slave device must be
inactive when first powered up.

A slave will only accept commands after it has received a message "COPYRIGHT
XXXX" where XXX is the company name and copyright date.

A slave will not be spoken to unless it responds to a "COPYRIGHT" query with
a
valid response, which just happens to be the company name and a valid
copyright
date for that type device.

Now tell me, are you going to make a device for somebody when it has to tell
the
world that its copyright belongs to your competitor in order for it to work?

BTW, the guys wife who came up with this scheme is a patent attorney for a
BIG
bioengineering company.

Andy










Chris Eddy <ceddy@NB.NET> on 05/15/2000 06:42:23 AM

Please respond to pic microcontroller discussion list
<PICLIST@MITVMA.MIT.EDU>








 To:      PICLIST@MITVMA.MIT.EDU

 cc:      (bcc: Andrew Kunz/TDI_NOTES)



 Subject: [OT] When is a protocol proprietary?








Gents;

Your suggestions thus far have been very good pointers on the issue,
much appreciated.

To clarify, the task at hand is not to reverse engineer the software or
even the hardware ( I would not feel comfortable reverse engineering
one's software) but studying the message format on the communications
link between the devices.  It is a situation very analogous to the TV
remote control debate.  You can make a reciever, then study the message
format, and make your own transmitter.  But is this (A) legal, and (B)
ethical?  I have made the argument in the past that if one were to make
a nockoff remote, and then market it, that if it were to exibit poor
performance, then that product might make the manufacturer of the TV
look bad, and that they had a compelling reason (but not a legal
right??) to restrict third party devices that work on their TV.  I
obviously painted myself into a solid corner.

Any further ideas?  Such as case law on one manufacturer studying
another's product?

Thanks
Chris Eddy