3 ms·
The trouble is that it's a lot easier to copy an algorithm without in any way violating copyright than it is to copy it without violating a patent on it.
by MaysonL 15y ago
The trouble is that it's a lot easier to copy an algorithm without in any way violating copyright than it is to copy it without violating a patent on it.
- fauigerzigerk 15y agoI'm not so sure about that. If the license prohibits reverse engineering and someone still does it, that's clearly a violation of the law. If a commercial company does it, it's going to be difficult for them to keep secret as some employees will surely know about it. I agree that part of what patents intend to do, protecting original invention from copycats, is legitimate. But if it's done in a way that punishes original invention that seems counter productive to me.
- biafra 15y agoIf the law allows reverse engineering (like here in Germany) your license can prohibit it as much as it wants. It's still legal and no violation of the law.
- fauigerzigerk 15y agoI believe even in Germany you cannot use the results of reverse engineering to copy the product and sell it commercially without violating some copyright law. But I'm not denying that patents can sometimes be helpful to protect against copycats. I just think that prohibiting original independent invention in order to prevent copying is absurd because it punishes exactly the people who are supposed to be the beneficiaries of patents.