Relay-Version: version B 2.10 5/3/83; site utzoo.UUCP Posting-Version: version B 2.10.2 9/18/84; site brl-tgr.ARPA Path: utzoo!watmath!clyde!burl!ulysses!allegra!bellcore!decvax!genrad! panda!talcott!harvard!seismo!brl-tgr!tgr!vortex!lau...@rand-unix.ARPA From: lau...@rand-unix.ARPA Newsgroups: net.unix-wizards Subject: definitions (trade secret, copyright, etc.) and the courts Message-ID: <9056@brl-tgr.ARPA> Date: Thu, 7-Mar-85 19:07:41 EST Article-I.D.: brl-tgr.9056 Posted: Thu Mar 7 19:07:41 1985 Date-Received: Sun, 10-Mar-85 07:21:09 EST Sender: n...@brl-tgr.ARPA Lines: 37 Actually, the definitions of all those terms, including trade secrets, copyrights, patents, etc. are tied to whatever court decisions are currently in force. For example, there have been recent decisions specifically relating to object code that have declared that object code has the same protection as source code via trade secret. The case involved someone who had "disassembled" some object code to turn it back into source, then started distributing software based on that new source without appropriate licenses. The particular case held that both the distribution of the software generated from the "new" source, and the dissemination of the information gained from analyzing the object code, were violations. I might also add that there have been cases upholding "trade secret" protection even when the "secret" is fairly widely known. It all depends on specifics. Now, obviously, court decisions on such matters as copyright and trade secret are pinging around fast enough to make your head spin. And the fabric of the law, and the exact interpretations of the law that may be made in any particular case, are changing on a case by case basis. However, the general trend is now appearing to include both object and source code under the same protections. Given this state of affairs, the only prudent course would seem to be NOT to look at source and also to not disassemble object code if you're trying to create an independent "workalike" (or whatever you want to call it) of some software entity. This is the course that I chose to take in my own efforts, even though it makes for a lot of work. I agree with the person that suggested lobbying for changes in the laws if you don't like the way things are now. But note that you'd better have something else that is reasonable and practical in mind if you intend for anyone to listen to you! I hope there will be discussion of some such things in the ethics list if/when it gets going. --Lauren--
Relay-Version: version B 2.10 5/3/83; site utzoo.UUCP Posting-Version: version B 2.10.1 6/24/83; site hcradm.UUCP Path: utzoo!hcrvax!hcradm!mike From: m...@hcradm.UUCP (Mike Tilson) Newsgroups: net.unix-wizards Subject: Re: definitions (trade secret, copyright, etc.) and the courts Message-ID: <1763@hcradm.UUCP> Date: Tue, 12-Mar-85 19:49:57 EST Article-I.D.: hcradm.1763 Posted: Tue Mar 12 19:49:57 1985 Date-Received: Wed, 13-Mar-85 05:12:48 EST References: <9056@brl-tgr.ARPA> Organization: Human Computing Resources, Toronto Lines: 14 There has been some considerable discussion of intellectual property issues and ethics in this group recently. As many of you will be attending the June Usenix meeting in Portland, I thought I would let you know that there will be an opportunity to take a course on the law as it applies to software and intellectual property. I took the course myself in Salt Lake. It's quite good, and easily understandable by technical people. It approaches the subject with a very balanced and pragmatic viewpoint. I'll post further details later to this group and to net.usenix. As there seems to be a great deal of opinion on the subject, I hope people will welcome the opportunity to become more educated. /Mike Tilson, Human Computing Resources Corp.(and Usenix Tutorial Coordinator)