OT: Interface legality concerns

If I design a piece of equipment with an RS232 connector I very much doubt it is illegal for someone to connect a terminal to it and start typing away in the hope of making use of it...

Trying to reverse-engineer the contents of the device (by whatever means) is probably illegal in some countries by now.

Geo

Get a lawyer.

Is

it is

the

is

The EU has taken a position in the copyright directive that even de-compilation of a piece of code is permitted if it's the only method of getting the interface specification. De-compilation or dis-assembly is a much more drastic reverese-engineering task than just probing an interface.

Tauno Voipio tauno voipio @ iki fi

better

ya, thanks smart guy... Can you suggest which kind? Is there such thing as a lawyer that specialises in software patents/issues? Or has Microsoft put them all on retainer ;-)

Jamie

interface.

Thanks for the information, I'm not looking to deassemble any code just sniff the serial connect to determine the interface commands...

Do you have a reference for your comments above?

thanks! Jamie

Unfortunately, yes. They'll probably list their skills as "intellectual property".

No general answer to this, and you probably should consult a lawyer before selling this product, but:

• Reverse-engineering for the purpose of assuring compatibility is explicitly legal in most jurisdictions.

However:

• In the USA, the manufacturer may sue you under the DMCA if they can create a tortuous definition that your product is a "circumvention device" of some kind.

• If some aspect of the communications protocol is patented, you may be required to license the patent (or face the litigious music, again).

patents/issues?

Thanks for the help Gary... I've booked an apointment...

Jamie

of

The EU Council Directive 91/250/EEC 14 May 1991, Article 5, part 3.

A good starting point may be

HTH

Tauno Voipio tauno voipio @ iki fi

Look for recent comments by Richard Stallman on why the term "IP" is meaningless. He thinks about this a lot.

Intellectual property contains the concepts of patent, copyright, and trademark, somewhat related but very different. If you mean patent, say patent; if you mean copyright, say copyright; if you mean trademark, say trademark. WTF is IP?

trademark,

you mean

Well, it's good to know that I'm not the only one lost in this ;-)

meaningless.

IP is a term lawyers use in threats when they don't want you to understand what your rights are. The more they can confuse you, the less likely you will be able to defend yourself, or even understand where you stand.

Bob McConnell N2SPP

Aside from the legal issues, I would be much more concerned about your product being very quickly obsoleted. Because the manufacturer of the cell phone has no incentive or legal obligation to maintain their existing interface protocol, they are free to change it at any time. I would not be surprized if the next model (or even the next revision of an existing model) used a completely different protocol for accessing the calendar and all other non-standardized functions. I wouldn't even be surprized if a manufacturer decided to add some kind of encryption to their protocol.

Look at how often new cell phone models are released on the market, multiply this by the number of manufacturers, and multiply that by the amount of time it takes you to "sniff out" one new interface protocol. Now keep this figure in mind and carefully re-examine the terms of your contract.

multiply

time

I'm going to have to disagree... PC connectivity for Cell phones is pretty similar across a manufactures product line (just look at how many models are supported by their synch software...).

Going from manufacture to manufacture, you are correct...they vary quite substantially..... Except for new phones that support the standardized synchML interface.

Thanks for you input,

Jamie

The ninth circuit court (California) ruled earlier this year that a contract prohibiting reverse engineering overrides certain explicit protections afforded to the practice by existing IP law.

The ninth circuit has the worst record of overturn on appeal - that is, they get overturned by the appellate courts more often than any other circuit. But the case in question hasn't been appealed yet.

If the decision is upheld (or not appealed), I expect every US manufacturer of anything will quickly move to include shrink wrap licenses forbidding reverse engineering of their products. Most consumer items now have no such license - manufacturers fully expect that their competition will obtain and examine their products and compete instead with name recognition, quality, pricing and features.

For the time being I think the question of reverse engineering is in legal limbo - at least in the US.

George

Has the wishful silly practice of "shrink wrap license" ever been legally validated?

So is the concept of "shrink wrap license", AFAIK, DMCA not withstanding.

George Neuner wrote in news: snipped-for-privacy@4ax.com:

Oh boy, statistics are fun.

For the term ending October 2002, which is the one I was able to dig up information regarding:

The 9th is the largest circuit court, and as such, handles the largest case load. The 9th circuit court sent about 24 cases to the Supreme Court of which about 18 were in fact overturned. This indeed makes it the "most overturned court", as conservatives often declare. However other courts send between 4 and 8 cases a year to the supreme courts, and the average overturn rate is about the same as the 9th at 73%. From all of the circuit courts, there were a total of 56 cases sent to the supreme court, of which a total of 40 were overturned, or 71.4%. In fact with 6 cases upheld last year, one can argue that the 9th circuit is the most upheld court in the country. Of the 16 upheld judgements, 6 came from the 9th, the other 10 came from the rest of the circuit courts. In fact, all of the cases from the 4th, 5th, 8th, and 10th circuits were overturned, 100% rate there. In fact, none of the other circuit courts had more than 2 decisions upheld. So, if we are going to go by numbers alone, the 9th circuit court decisions were upheld three times as often as any other circuit court.

Aren't statistics fun?

Statistics are fun.

However, the Supreme Court is a 2nd level appellate court - very few cases ever get there. 99.44% of all cases are played out in the general court or at the 1st appellate level. The ninth circuit general courts have the worst record of overturn at the appellate level, both in absolute and relative numbers. That they are the source of a greater number of Supreme Court cases may be a function of their large case load, or it may be indicative of too damn much money being available to Hollywood lawyers.

In contrast to the other circuits, which tend to be conservative in the scope of their decisions, the ninth has a long history of proactively making new law and of deliberate interference with the other branches of government. In addition, the ninth has the most liberal policies regarding hearing cases and often takes on cases the other circuits have refused.

George

AFAIK, the only real decision that has been made was that the license terms had to be viewable by the customer before the customer took any action which constituted acceptance of the terms - such as opening packaging.

Aside from that, the legal merits of particular licenses are being handled on a case by case basis.

A number of IP attorneys have privately told me their opinions of DMCA as a law. Basically they conclude that the DMCA introduced no new protections relative to the existing law and simply lowered the bar for proving infringment and expanded the scope of damages which could be claimed and the penalties the courts could impose. The attorneys I have spoken with all consider DMCA a self serving industry law which is mostly not in the public interest. Every one of them would like to find a real merit case to try.

George