Interesting People mailing list archives
re OS X hack sites] tirade FAVORING reverse engineering!]
From: Dave Farber <dave () farber net>
Date: Mon, 20 Feb 2006 14:48:55 -0500
-------- Original Message -------- Subject: [was re OS X hack sites] tirade FAVORING reverse engineering! Date: Mon, 20 Feb 2006 11:38:19 -0800 From: Jim Warren <jwarren () well com> To: dave () farber net CC: Dan Shoop <shoop () iwiring net> References: <43F9BEB8.8090609 () farber net>
>Date: Sat, 18 Feb 2006 12:07:00 -0500 >From: Dan Shoop <shoop () iwiring net> ... This is a company protecting their assets (software) from reverse engineering and modification to run on hardware which they do not support....
Oh NO! Have we really come this far? So quickly?! Is someone really ACCEPTING that reverse engineering should be prohibited?! (That is, someone other than massive corporations' thought-monopoly patent attorneys.) While a tech columnist in the late '80's, I received a "back-channel" copy of a "radical" proposal by IBM, "secretly" outlining how they might go about quietly getting WIPO to -- for the first time in history -- outlaw reverse engineering. At the time, it was considered a wildly radical idea. (The World Intellectual Property Organization is the unelected UN agency that "harmonizes" i.p. law between nations, administering more'n 20 international i.p. treaties, to assure equal repression for all.) Hell, it's only been a bit more'n 20 years since software was even first deemed patentable! In the 40-or-so years before that, such monopolies were NOT permitted. Which didn't seem to harm the likes of IBM, AT&T, Bell Labs, Digital Equipment, H-P nor any of the other companies that grew fat and rich offering products including software that was NOT patentable. That notably included the first ten years or so, of both Apple and Microsoft (which got its start in operating systems using a reverse-engineered version of the then-most-popular CP/M operating system ... which, itself, was modeled after Digital's old TOPS-10 OS). And in fact, ALL of those companies happily and routinely reverse-engineered competitors' products -- fueling innovation and speeding improvements, for the benefit of all. But now ... we see folks not just accepting the repression of software patents. NOW we see 'em even just ASSUMING that reverse engineering SHOULD be prohibited! Sheesh! If we still had spring-driven mechanical clocks, no doubt their manufacturers would now zealously sue any time someone offered instructions about how to open their "proprietary" clock-cases, much less offering guidance as to their detailed operation! And I certainly hope that no one ever dares to disassemble their bicycle, to see how its gearing works! --jim ------------------------------------- You are subscribed as lists-ip () insecure org To manage your subscription, go to http://v2.listbox.com/member/?listname=ip Archives at: http://www.interesting-people.org/archives/interesting-people/
Current thread:
- re OS X hack sites] tirade FAVORING reverse engineering!] Dave Farber (Feb 20)