Location via proxy:   [ UP ]  
[Report a bug]   [Manage cookies]                
Scribd Logo
Upload

Welcome to Scribd!

  • 34 views

    Rev Eng Short

    Uploaded by

    tosethebest
    Cem kaner: reverse engineering is a common use restriction in software licenses. He says ARTICLE 2B makes it presumptively enforceable unless federal law preempts it. Kaner says reverse engineering can be used for education, research, interoperability.

    Copyright:

    Attribution Non-Commercial (BY-NC)
    Download as PDF, TXT or read online from Scribd

    Rev Eng Short

    Uploaded by

    tosethebest
    34 views5 pages
    Cem kaner: reverse engineering is a common use restriction in software licenses. He says ARTICLE 2B makes it presumptively enforceable unless federal law preempts it. Kaner says reverse engineering can be used for education, research, interoperability.

    Copyright

    © Attribution Non-Commercial (BY-NC)

    Available Formats

    PDF, TXT or read online from Scribd

    Did you find this document useful?

    Is this content inappropriate?

    Cem kaner: reverse engineering is a common use restriction in software licenses. He says ARTICLE 2B makes it presumptively enforceable unless federal law preempts it. Kaner says reverse engineering can be used for education, research, interoperability.

    Copyright:

    Attribution Non-Commercial (BY-NC)
    Download as PDF, TXT or read online from Scribd
    Download as pdf or txt
    34 views5 pages

    Rev Eng Short

    Uploaded by

    tosethebest
    Cem kaner: reverse engineering is a common use restriction in software licenses. He says ARTICLE 2B makes it presumptively enforceable unless federal law preempts it. Kaner says reverse engineering can be used for education, research, interoperability.

    Copyright:

    Attribution Non-Commercial (BY-NC)
    Download as PDF, TXT or read online from Scribd
    Download as pdf or txt
    of 5

    CEM KANER, J.D., Ph.D.

    Law Office of Cem Kaner kaner@kaner.com


    P.O. Box 1200 408-244-7000 (Voice)
    Santa Clara, CA 95052 www.badsoftware.com 408-244-2181 (Fax)

    ARTICLE 2B and REVERSE ENGINEERING


    Cem Kaner. July 1998.

    Article 2B validates use restrictions in software licenses, including mass-market licenses. One
    of the common use restrictions is a ban on reverse engineering, and 2B makes it presumptively
    enforceable (enforceable unless federal law preempts the restriction). Before you say, "Yes,
    yes, federal law will preempt this," let me remind you of Ray Nimmer's recent analysis of
    federal preemption of contract clauses:

    There have been no cases in which [Copyright Act] Section 301


    preemption was used successfully to challenge and invalidate a
    term of a contract that was enforceable as a matter of general
    state contract law.
    (Ray Nimmer, "Breaking Barriers: The Relation Between Contract And Intellectual Property
    Law" Conference on the Impact of Article 2B, Berkeley, April 23-25, 1998.
    www.SoftwareIndustry.org/issues/guide/docs/rncontract-new.html.)
    Therefore, the place to consider whether reverse engineering should be allowed in the mass
    market (via restriction on contract terms) or banned in the mass market (via letting publishers
    enforce restrictive terms) appears to be Article 2B.
    Here are four examples of use of reverse engineering. All seem socially
    desirable to me. How do we avoid killing off these types of uses under 2B?
    1. Education: I learned Operating System programming by disassembling the Apple II OS.
    (See charts 2-3.)
    2. Investigation of Potential Infringement: When I was Testing Technology Team Leader at
    WordStar, we reverse engineered a competitor's product in order to determine whether they
    had used some of our code in their product. (Sorry, no charts are available.)
    3. Interoperability: When I was the Software Development Manager for Express Publisher, a
    desktop publishing progam, we had to reverse engineer other companies' file formats in
    order to be able to read (and thus format) their data. (See chart 4.)
    4. Investigation of Consumer Fraud: Part of the basis for claims that the capabilities of
    SoftRAM95 had been misrepresented in the mass-market came from reverse engineering.
    (See charts 5-7).
    ARTICLE 2B and REVERSE ENGINEERING

    Chart 2: DISASSEMBLY OF THE APPLE II O/S

    Some people say that reverse engineering is so difficult that no one really wants to (should
    want to) (has time to) do it. Therefore, they say, banning it is no big deal.
    Reverse engineering is time consuming, painstaking, but informative work. But, just as lawyers
    learn much from examining briefs written by other lawyers, many programmers learn new
    skills by studying other peoples' programs. That's what I was up to.
    The three pages on this chart are examples of the kinds of work that John Vokey and I did to
    analyze the Apple II Operating System in 1981.
    • One page is from a tracking table that showed us how special locations in memory
    were used by parts of the operating system. (At this time, we only knew those parts by
    number. Over time, once we understood them, we assigned them names.)
    • The next page shows a disassembled segment of memory and our notes about what
    parts of the program are stored in this segment. Once we understood the function well,
    we typed up the notes (see the final page).
    • The third page shows our almost-completed analyses of two of the Operating System's
    subroutines.

    Based on these analyses, we made several enhancements to the system. Examples:

    • We discovered a serious error in the system's random number generator (RNG). We


    developed and published an alternative RNG that was suitable for the mathematical
    simulations that John Lyons and I were conducting.
    • We extended the built-in programming language, to make it easier for different
    laboratories to create standard functions and share them. (We published the extensions
    in a few articles in computer magazines.)
    • I rewrote or extended device control routines so that we could run certain types of
    experiments with total timing errors of less than 60 microseconds. These routines
    made my dissertation research (timing-related experiments) possible and were used by
    other doctoral students for their research.

    I couldn't have done this work under Article 2B.

    CEM KANER, J.D., Ph.D.


    Law Office of Cem Kaner kaner@kaner.com
    P.O. Box 1200 408-244-7000 (Voice)
    Santa Clara, CA 95052 www.badsoftware.com 408-244-2181 (Fax)
    ARTICLE 2B and REVERSE ENGINEERING

    Chart 3: INTEROPERABILITY

    In 1990-91, I was the Software Development Manager for several releases of a desktop
    publishing program called Express Publisher. Express Publisher reads files that you created
    with a word processing program and helps you lay out the files (format them in pretty ways).
    Express Publisher must be able to understand your files. A memo that you write with Microsoft
    Word is stored in a different file from the same memo, written in WordPerfect. How can
    Express Publisher know how to read each of these program's data files?
    Initially, I called several software publishers and asked them for their file format
    specifications.
    • One publisher sold us a set of documentation for about $70.
    • A second publisher said that they didn't have a full specification, but we were welcome
    to try to figure it out (by looking at how lots of different memos were stored -- this is
    reverse engineering).
    • One publisher told me that we could not (not, NOT, NOT!) reverse engineer its file
    format because we were competitors and they didn't want us to be able to import their
    files into our program. They wanted to prevent us from doing reverse engineering for
    the purpose of making our program interoperable with (able to work with) their
    program.
    Having bought copies of each program in the mass market, we decided that we had the right to
    reverse engineer their file formats whether the publishers of those programs liked it or not.
    After a lot of work, we were able to read the main types of files that our customers would
    expect of us.
    Eventually, Express Publisher became the best seller in a crowded niche (under $100, DOS-
    based desktop publishers).
    We wouldn't have had this success -- or any success -- if we hadn't been able to reverse
    engineer the file formats. No one would want to retype their documents just to work with our
    program.
    As a general principle, no new product can enter an existing category unless it can read data
    files created by its leading competitors. If there is no ability to read, the cost of converting
    from the old format to the new will be much too high to risk on a newcomer that isn't well
    established. And few newcomers to the market will be able to read their competitors' files
    without reverse engineering the competitors' file formats.
    In our case, we were not competitors with the word processing companies, but we still could
    not have succeeded in the market without reverse engineering other companies' data files.
    This was an example of reverse engineering to achieve
    interoperability. As far as I can tell, Article 2B will allow companies to
    ban this. What public policy is served by that ban?
    The Case of Syncronys SoftRAM95

    SoftRAM95 was a utility program that sold tremendously well when


    Windows 95 first came out. It was supposed to improve the
    computer's management of memory, but apparently it did nothing
    (or almost nothing).
    Here are some articles:
    • SoftRAM 95 "False and Misleading"--overview of the
    situation, with many links to other data and reports.
    • PC Magazine reports that SoftRAM95 does not compress
    RAM under Windows 3.x either.
    • Dataquest conducted a survey of SoftRAM95 users. 80% of
    them were satisfied customers. This illustrates a key point. It
    is hard for non-experts to tell whether a program lives up to
    its claims.
    • Andrew Schulman reverse engineers SoftRAM
    • Mark Russinovich reverse engineers SoftRAM
    • Syncronys warns a magazine about an upcoming review,
    claiming rights under trade secrets and copyright laws. Under
    Article 2B, these claims would have had power if the analysis
    of SoftRAM was based on reverse engineering and the
    SoftRAM product came with a no-reverse-engineering
    license.
    • The FTC files a complaint (eventually settled--SoftRAM goes
    off the market.)
    This example of reverse engineering and disassembly was done to
    detect consumer fraud. What public policy is served by banning or
    discouraging this type of reverse engineering?

    You might also like