Apple was involved in a similar 'honey pot' case in the 1980s [1], only with computer code instead of place names on a map. (The description below is from memo

Apple was involved in a similar 'honey pot' case in the 1980s [1], only with computer code instead of place names on a map. (The description below is from memory; I can't find the court opinions on-line, and I think the honey pot was discussed only in the trial court's opinion, not on appeal.) Back in the day, Franklin Computer Corp. made a clone of the Apple ][. Franklin claimed to have used a clean room [2] to develop its own ROM and OS, without copying Apple's code. Apple disassembled the Franklin executable --- and they knew exactly what they were looking for: One of the Apple programmers had created a no-op variable and set its value to be his own name. (He didn't just put his name into a comment in the source code, because of course that would have been stripped out during the build process and wouldn't have made it into the executable code.) So guess what Apple found in the Franklin code .... That's right: The Apple programmer's name in the no-op variable. Franklin then changed its position and admitted that they'd copied Apple's code, but claimed (unsuccessfully) that doing so was not infringement. [1] http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Apple_Computer,_Inc._v._Franklin_Computer_Corp http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Apple_Computer,_Inc._v._Frankli.... [Note: The period in the URL might mess things up when you click on the link.] [2] http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Clean_room_design http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Clean_room_design