Commodore returns !

[IdeasVacuum]

Reverse Engineering is not illegal

Oh yes it is! Depends entirely on how the information collected is subsequently used. Toyota dismantled BMWs to learn how to beat them and built the Lexus. Hoover however were sued for $5million for reverse-engineering the Dyson Vacuum Cleaner. Many commercial software licenses specifically refer to reverse engineering and rightly so.

[Zach]

Personally, I am glad that ROMs from long dead systems are widely available. It keeps the "art" alive and allows new and future generations to experience the past. It also allows us old farts to still use what we love and play games we couldn't afford as kids and games you often can't buy anymore. That said, the PB forums are not the place for such discussion and links.

That's really the point I was interested in making.

[Zach]

Reverse Engineering is not illegal

Oh yes it is! Depends entirely on how the information collected is subsequently used. Toyota dismantled BMWs to learn how to beat them and built the Lexus. Hoover however were sued for $5million for reverse-engineering the Dyson Vacuum Cleaner. Many commercial software licenses specifically refer to reverse engineering and rightly so.

Ok but there is more than one way to reverse engineer something. Buying a competitors product and taking it apart, imho is akin to corporate espionage and should be illegal.

But if you can mimic the function of the original device (i.e what Emulators do in 99% of the cases) without having looked at the original product, or at least only using it as a reference to make sure your engineers do a "clean" reverse engineer, then I don't think that can really be called illegal. As long as you can demonstrate your system, while maybe acting the same as a competitors, was still arrived at through an originally derived mechanism, that is not simply a "copy" of the original, I don't see why you should be held liable.

But more to the point, the fact some things can be reverse engineered without consequence, while others may not be, and have licenses or legal protections which specifically forbid rever engineering, kind of proves the point it is not "illegal" in a blanket (everything) sense. Which is what I was really saying.

[Ramihyn_]

Based on which country are you discussing reverse engineering laws?

Reverse engineering isnt forbidden "per se", or it would be time to jail a lot antivirus company developers. In 2011 people should know that just because you write something into a license, doesnt make it enforcable law. Check Microsoft licenses over the years - they learned that too!

Weird discussion in this thread though

[IdeasVacuum]

mimic the function of the original device (i.e what Emulators do in 99% of the cases) without having looked at the original product, or at least only using it as a reference to make sure your engineers do a "clean" reverse engineer, then I don't think that can really be called illegal

That depends on the definition of Reverse Engineering. If you mimic another device, even though you have not copied methods of engineering/production or solution design, you can still be in trouble - Apple v Samsung, Philips v Remington. At the end of the day, you are copying something that was not your idea but you want a piece of the lucrative market that it created - of course the originators are going to be after you if they can!

In 2011 people should know that just because you write something into a license

You cannot write your own laws or write your way around existing laws that is true, but Reverse Engineering as a method of copying original work without permission of the originator is an infringement of copyright (and of patent if existing) and is against the law, so a software agreement to that effect is perfectly valid.

Microsoft's Achilles heel had tended to be the fact that they tried to defend their own rights whilst walking all over others. In case you hadn't noticed, they are relatively good (but not perfect) boys these days ........and many people on this forum have enjoyed a good income thanks to the Windows platform.

[Zach]

Well I'm not a legal scholar, so I'll take your word for it.

[Ramihyn_]

If you mimic another device, even though you have not copied methods of engineering/production or solution design, you can still be in trouble - Apple v Samsung

I dont know which case you refer to with this, but i have read the german lawsuit from Apple vs. Samsung and that is about a so called "Geschmacksmuster" (protected design). It is a very weak case and not a good example to mention, before its over.

In 2011 people should know that just because you write something into a license

You cannot write your own laws or write your way around existing laws that is true, but Reverse Engineering as a method of copying original work without permission of the originator is an infringement of copyright (and of patent if existing) and is against the law, so a software agreement to that effect is perfectly valid.

I didnt talk about copying another companies code nor about "infringing patents". Illegal actions are illegal no matter if you allow or forbid them in an EULA *shrugs*

Microsoft's Achilles heel had tended to be the fact that they tried to defend their own rights whilst walking all over others. In case you hadn't noticed, they are relatively good (but not perfect) boys these days ........and many people on this forum have enjoyed a good income thanks to the Windows platform.

Microsoft is a company. Just like Apple is a company. Neither of them are boys nor are they "good" or "bad". They exist to make a profit and use the legal system as much as they can, to achieve that. Many years ago Microsoft had to back away from putting too much pressure on competitors due to having a monopole in some aspects of the market and getting trouble with anti-trust regulations (internal restructuring was enforced upon Microsoft due to that for example).

Apple was on the receiving side of legal pressure and complained when they where sued (same for AMD vs. Intel and others). Now in 2011 the situations changed a bit and Smartphones, Pads and with them Apple created new growing markets while Microsoft has trouble to be successfull in these new markets. Now Apple does what they where complaining about some years ago and tries to sue competitors for this and that reason. Microsoft no longer has a strong monopole position and (for example) has therefore less problems enforcing software patents agressively against other companies. Nowadays they collect license from companies for FAT(32x) patents, back some years ago when they tried that (LFN patent for FAT32), that immediately raised anti-competitive behaviour warning lights and they backed off. Ask google and a lot smartphone companies if Microsoft is "good" for forcing them to pay license fee's for android

Neither Microsoft nor Apple is good or bad, they are just trying to make profit.

and many people on this forum have enjoyed a good income thanks to the Windows platform.

I could claim the opposite too. Microsoft profits from having this huge support of developers. It's a "give and take" relationship for mutual benefits, but if Microsoft would disappear right now, i would simply do the same business on a competitors platform (like Mac OS X or IOS) and have done so in the past.

It's not Microsoft which i have to thank for a good income, but the customers who require a (software) service and use computers

ps: we probably need a seperate thread for this

[electrochrisso]

Actually I have a collection of Vic20 and C64 cartridges and they are worthless, not even collectables. If they were or ever become, I am sure the lawyers would be out in force.

[IdeasVacuum]

I think we can agree to disagree, but

i would simply do the same business on a competitors platform

not every developer would be able to do that since the nearest competitor has less seats to sell to (about 70% less is my estimate, being generous). You could also be looking at a substantial reduction per seat, if you found that the only way to get exposure was via that competitor's selling system.......

[Ramihyn_]

not every developer would be able to do that since the nearest competitor has less seats to sell to (about 70% less is my estimate, being generous).

If Microsoft Windows would disappear, the customers would still have the need to get their jobs done. So those 70% would switch to a competitors system. The customer base would still be roughly the same. Actually moves like that, have given me very nice income in the past with emulation and porting of software when platforms died (Apollo-OS, VMS, AIX and others).

You could also be looking at a substantial reduction per seat, if you found that the only way to get exposure was via that competitor's selling system.......

Antitrust regulation would kick in. If multiple companies had the same problem, we would find a solution together and a new sales channel would be created. Look at GoD or Steam and how so many other companies try to do the same now

[Kuron]

Hmm.... That must have changed or where I got the 50 years was wrong to begin with.

It changed in 1998 as part of the Sonny Bono Copyright Term Extension Act. Before that it was 50 years from the death of the author and had been that way since '76.

[Kuron]

the end of the day, you are copying something that was not your idea

You can't copyright an idea, only the expression of an idea.

[Kuron]

and many people on this forum have enjoyed a good income thanks to the Windows platform.

Not me. I can no longer afford to purchase Windows licenses, not even for one of my machines. Windows has literally forced me to stop developing for and supporting Windows and move to developing for and supporting non-Windows operating systems.

[Zach]

Wait...we're supposed to pay for windows licenses?

[Thorium]

Actually I have a collection of Vic20 and C64 cartridges and they are worthless, not even collectables.

Actualy there are VIC20 and especialy C64 games that are collectibles and fetch high prices.
I dont know any cartridges with high prices but try to get a original Giana Sisters for C64.