Want to read Slashdot from your mobile device? Point it at m.slashdot.org and keep reading!

 


Forgot your password?
Close
typodupeerror
×
Patents

When is it Legal to Reverse Engineer Software? 40

Posted by Cliff from the stuff-to-discuss dept.
A not-so Anonymous Coward asks: "I'm the lead developer of SciGraphica, an open source application for scientific graphics that runs under Linux, and is based on Microcal Origin, the commercial application for Windows. When we contacted this company, they let us know that a port for Linux or other operating systems was not in their plans, and that they were not willing to make their proprietary file format available. However, we realized that it is in fact easy to reverse engineer to create a filter that would allow our program to read Origin files. Are we walking into a case of patent infringement, or this is a legitimate solution? If this is problematic, is there a way to allow people to legally have access to the filter?"
This discussion has been archived. No new comments can be posted.

When is it Legal to Reverse Engineer Software? More

When is it Legal to Reverse Engineer Software?

Comments Filter:
  • Are we walking into a case of patent infringement

    Have you searched? [uspto.gov]
  • Although I am not sure on the legality of the issue, it is common practice to reverse engineer file formats. What concerns me is the act being viewed as stealing raw data from a file. So what I would think that it would be legal to reverse engineer the format, but not steal the data within those files. This would allow you to create your own files based on your data and have the same file format.

  • Here's your answer (Score:1, Troll)

    by Anonymous Coward
    **Insert "I Am Not A Lawyer" header**

    **Insert open source statement, explaining everything should be free as in beer**

    **Insert obligatory anti-Microsoft statement**

    **Insert funny sig**
    • **Insert "I Am Not A Lawyer" header**

      **Insert open source statement, explaining everything should be free as in beer**

      **Insert obligatory anti-Microsoft statement**

      **Insert funny sig**


      Nice try. Next time use your Slashdot login and you will get an "interesting" or "insightful" instead of "troll"...

  • Reverse engineering (Score:5, Informative)

    by ninewands ( 105734 ) on Friday January 25, 2002 @07:09PM (#2903923)
    I'm the lead developer of SciGraphica, an open source application for scientific graphics that runs under Linux, and is based on Microcal Origin, the commercial application for Windows. When we contacted this company, they let us know that a port for Linux or other operating systems was not in their plans, and that they were not willing to make their proprietary file format available.

    Normal ... dumb, but normal ...

    However, we realized that it is in fact easy to reverse engineer to create a filter that would allow our program to read Origin files. Are we walking into a case of patent infringement, or this is a legitimate solution?

    File formats are not patentable nor are they copyrightable. If they were there would be no interoperability between word processors and WordPerfect would still be the standard for WP software because MS couldn't have wedged into the market without being able to interoperate. Yes, reverse-engineering the file format is perfectly legitimate. Do you think Star Division licensed the MS Office file formats from Microsoft?

    If this is problematic, is there a way to allow people to legally have access to the filter?

    Filter? What filter ... just write your program to use the Origin files as their native file format ... and don't be surprised if the company changes the format to break interoperability ... it's been done before.

    As for giving others access to the "filter" you DID say this was an Open Source app, right? Just GPL whatever solution you create and then give it away. However, make sure that the ONLY thing you examine is the data files ... don't go poking around in the binary with a debugger or hex editor. The file format may not be protectable but the code itself damn sure IS.

    • Microsoft patents ASF... stops reverse engineering (Score:3, Informative)

      by Anonymous Coward
      File formats are not patentable nor are they copyrightable.

      Microsoft claims they are - they patented the ASF file format, and forced the author of VirtualDub to remove ASF reading support from his program. See http://www.advogato.org/article/101.html [advogato.org].

      A quote:

      Today I received a polite phone call from a fellow at Microsoft who works in the Windows Media group. He informed me that Microsoft has intellectual property rights on the ASF format and told me that, although I had reverse engineered it, the implementation was still illegal since it infringed on Microsoft patents.
    • File formats are not patentable...
      Not true. Remember LZW/GIF, with the patent held for many years by Unisys.
      • I think the patent was actually on the compression scheme involved, not the file format. You can use uncompressed GIFs where the patent issue doesn't arise. Thus using the same format, but not the specific, and patented, LZW compression.
      • Remember LZW/GIF, with the patent held for many years by Unisys.

        Actually, the Unisys patent was on the LZW compression algorithm that produced the data stored in the file. The GIF file format itself was developed and owned by CompuServe, and it was NOT patented.

        I would submit that if one developed a different algorithm (NOT a reverse-engineered implementation of LZW) that produced the same output data stream LZW compression does and wrote the data out to a GIF formatted file, you would have nothing to fear from Unisys because all their patent covers is the LZW algorithm.

    • Re:Reverse engineering (Score:3, Informative)

      by youngsd ( 39343 )

      File formats are not patentable nor are they copyrightable.

      Whoa, there. Where did you get that from? File formats certainly are patentable -- the fact that particular companies have not patented particular file formats says nothing about the patentability of file formats in general.

      The Supreme Court has ruled that anything made by man is patentable subject matter. As long as the file format is a new one, and not a completely trivial change to an existing file format, then it should be patentable.

      And yes, I am an attorney (a recovering patent attorney).

      -Steve

      • Ya know, anywhere else, this would have been the end of the matter. But here, most people will just seek the opinion of 10 16 year olds who begin their posts with "IANAL, but.." then say the collective grey matter would outweigh your professional statement.

        I have to admire you. You haven't given up on slashdot like I have. Either that, or your FUD filter is broken.

        Only reason I mention this is i love it when a statement is made by someone completely in the know, and then is more or less ignored.. Kind of like "NO! NO! It makes sense, but it's not what I want to hear! NO!" response.
      • I'd like to see some case law upholding a patent on a data file format rather than on the algorithm that produced the data stored therein.

  • Either get explicit permission... (Score:3, Insightful)

    by bihoy ( 100694 ) on Friday January 25, 2002 @07:11PM (#2903933)

    or call a lawyer well versed in technology and patent law.

  • Consult your lawyer, of course! (Score:3, Interesting)

    by Deagol ( 323173 ) on Friday January 25, 2002 @07:12PM (#2903939) Homepage
    That said, it probably isn't clear cut.

    I used to work for a small point-of-sale company. We had one programmer who's entire purpose in life was to do data conversions. If the competing company wouldn't open up their file format, he'd tear it apart in order to import our customer's existing data into our own system.

    Sometimes it was even simpler: tell the old software to dump a full report to text file, massage with your own tools, then re-import into the new app. :)

    I never heard of any legal scuffles as a result. And we'd often release (to customers) small utilities that would do the conversions.

    I mean, there's an entire class of software devoted to pulling data from various closed formats. Given the extensive lists of some (I can't recall any names right now), I find it hard to believe they "licensed" the right to read those file formats from every single company.

    On a related note, there are 2 apps that I'd love to see on Linux, but only have Windows versions. The first is the Unabridged Oxford English Dictionary 2nd Edition on CD-ROM, and the other is that huge CD-ROM collection from National Geographic that spans from 1888-2000 (or there abouts). Quite a project, to be sure, and I've always wondered myself if I'd catch hell if I ever figured out the DB structures and released the code to the OSS community.

    • the other is that huge CD-ROM collection from National Geographic that spans from 1888-2000 (or there abouts). Quite a project, to be sure, and I've always wondered myself if I'd catch hell if I ever figured out the DB structures and released the code to the OSS community.

      I have the 100+ years of National Geographic on DVD-ROM, and all the pages are just .jpg files. Searching is a different matter, though.
    • On a related note, there are 2 apps that I'd love to see on Linux, but only have Windows versions. The first is the Unabridged Oxford English Dictionary 2nd Edition on CD-ROM, and the other is that huge CD-ROM collection from National Geographic that spans from 1888-2000 (or there abouts). Quite a project, to be sure, and I've always wondered myself if I'd catch hell if I ever figured out the DB structures and released the code to the OSS community.

      Hmmm. [punches in 'geographic' on freshmeat.net. Clicks on first link.] Do you mean something like this?

      1. http://cpl.net/~driesz/magview [cpl.net]
    • On a related note, there are 2 apps that I'd love to see on Linux, but only have Windows versions. The first is the Unabridged Oxford English Dictionary 2nd Edition on CD-ROM, and the other is that huge CD-ROM collection from National Geographic that spans from 1888-2000 (or there abouts). Quite a project, to be sure, and I've always wondered myself if I'd catch hell if I ever figured out the DB structures and released the code to the OSS community.

      A few years ago, a friend of mine wrote a Linux/Unix app to access a CD-ROM encyclopedia. He had bought a copy of the CD, but it only came with DOS software. Then he released the app as open source, figuring the dictionary folks would be thrilled that he was opening up an entirely new market for their software -- this was in the days before CD-R's, and you would have had to buy the package to use the disc.

      A few months later, he got a cease-and-desist letter in the mail from the dictionary company's lawyer. Seems they viewed this software as a violation of their license agreement. Whether it was or not is anyone's guess. Not having the money for a legal fight, he withdrew the software.

      The moral of this story: Be prepared to pay through the nose for the privilege of being right.

  • Black box (Score:2, Insightful)

    by nzelnick ( 167241 )
    As long as you can prove that you're working from pure deduction, you should be fine.

    Check out this Cringely piece [pbs.org] on reverse engineering.

    nz
  • Many licenses forbid you to reverse engineer software. I'm not sure how they get away with or enforce this. Anyway, if that's not in there, you can use the reverse engineered code up to whatever amount is permitted by the fair use doctrine. As for patents, I seriously doubt they bothered but you ought to check just in case.
  • The Digital Millienium Copyright Act, while not applying to file formats or reverse engineering, DO apply to encryption. Now, you can go ahead and create and distribute your filter without a problem.


    Now, the problem you MIGHT, run into, is if they decide to change this format with a small "bug fix" patch. They could provide to conversion utility for current users. This patch could simply apply trivial encryption to the files and you would be (legally) powerless to reverse engineer or "crack" it.


    Just another reason the DMCA goes way beyond its bounds.

    • Ah, but the cracking of encryption is only illegal when used to control access to a copyrighted work, without permission of the copyright holder.

      Since it would be their own data they'd be cracking, it wouldn't be a DMCA violation. Or are you suggesting that "all their data are belong to MicroCal"?

    • Re:DMCA (Score:2, Informative)

      by schon ( 31600 )
      The Digital Millienium Copyright Act, while not applying to file formats or reverse engineering, DO apply to encryption. Now, you can go ahead and create and distribute your filter without a problem.

      *BZZT* Nope, wrong. Encryption has nothing to do with it.

      To quote the DMCA:
      (2) No person shall manufacture, import, offer to the public, provide, or otherwise traffic in any technology, product, service, device, component, or part thereof, that--
      ``(A) is primarily designed or produced for the purpose of circumventing a technological measure that effectively controls access to a work protected under this title;
      ``(B) has only limited commercially significant purpose or use other than to circumvent a technological measure that effectively controls access to a work protected under this title;

      Since the contents of the file format are copyrighted material, the file format itself "effectively prohibits access" to the work. Writing a filter that's sole purpose is to read this file format is indeed a violation of the DMCA.

      Now a common misconception is that you can use the following section as an excuse:

      (f ) Reverse Engineering.--(1) Notwithstanding the provisions of subsection (a)(1)(A), a person who has lawfully obtained the right to use a copy of a computer program may circumvent a technological measure that effectively controls access to a particular portion of that program for the sole purpose of identifying and analyzing those elements of the program that are necessary to achieve interoperability

      But you'd be wrong - because this only allows you to reverse engineer the program - it says nothing about the file formats used by the program.
  • I see nothing wrong in reverse engineering a file format. I've written such tools before. It's done all the time, even by the big guys. Microsoft reads WordPerfect and visa-versa. Used to be Lotus 1-2-3 and Excel could swap files. And look at Sun's StarOffice--reads and writes MS Office file formats. When I was working at NASA, the most popular piece of software we had for Macs and PCs on our Network was MacLink for converting popular Mac formats (like MacWord) to PC formats (like WordStar and WordPerfect; a time before Windows).

  • How you should proceed (Score:3, Informative)

    by Walter Bell ( 535520 ) <wcbell&bellandhorowitz,com> on Saturday January 26, 2002 @01:14AM (#2905273) Homepage
    Disclaimer: I am a lawyer in the state of Vermont but this is not real legal advice. If you don't pay me for a consultation, I can't be liable for anything you read here.

    That said, this is a classic case for what we call a compulsory license. Because your vendor does not offer software on a particular platform and you can demonstrate a legitimate need to reverse engineer their software just to make your software work, you should be free and clear. Off the top of my head, your right to do this is protected by the Federal case law created in State of Illinois vs. Netscape Communications Corporation, Horowitz vs. Franklin, and Digital Equipment Corporation vs. IBM. These cases are definitely worth citing when you visit your lawyer (or get sued).

    ~wally

  • "Just Do It" as nike says it wont really matter and it wont hurt if you dont tell them c'mon now who hasnt copied a micro$oft product and just look at it my way since micro$oft is counted as a monopoly and since monopolies are illegal in the united states micro$oft is really just an illegal company whit no soul or no consideration for the free use of human knowledge which should be free for us all to use.
  • In Europe, it is, among others, legal as soon as it is for debugging or interoperability purposes, and the only means to do so. Here's the law that says it. [eu.int]
  • That's why we have the patent system. Duh.
  • in my opinion, this isn't at all an immoral thing to do. just rewrite the file interaction stuff. in my opinion, this would be more difficult than immoral, because the compiler takes away the comments.
  • Engineering firms that do Human-Machine Interfaces do tons of reverse engineering.... If the goverment, the bsa, and other groups were to keep egineering firms from reverse engineering stuff... there would be no advacnes in plant control technology, plus in order to improve the systems, everything would have to get replaced, from the programable logic controler in some cases, to the network wireing, and up. Hell, some sapp wouldnt have his nice ORDT software if it wasen't for some acts of reverse engineering.

Slashdot Top Deals

The biggest difference between time and space is that you can't reuse time. -- Merrick Furst

Close