Legalities Question
-
I found this text on the net regarding US laws: Fair Use. Even with that in mind, there are further limits to copyright. For example, partial or limited reproduction of another's work may be permitted under the doctrine of fair use. This doctrine is especially liberal where the use advances public interests such as education or scholarship and specifically permits making a backup copy of a program. Further, sellers of utility software, such as clip art or programming libraries, should permit hassle-free distribution of non-competing works created by licensed users. [Programmers should seriously consider whether to use the work of publishers who assert additional rights.] Beyond fair use, still more fundamental limits to copyright protection should be considered. Expressions are Protected, not Facts or Ideas. The basic idea is easily illustrated: An author of an online story has protection for her words, but not for facts that she went to the trouble to collect or her basic plot. Similarly, a programmer has protection from others' duplicating a segment of code but not from their writing different code to accomplish the same end. Protection for facts as such is probably not available, and processes can be protected, if at all, only by trade secrets or patents. [For more on the last option in particular, see Seeking Cost-Effective Patents, right-hand navigation bar.] That said, caution is nevertheless warranted. Copying someone's creative presentation of facts could easily infringe. Also, merely translating from one language into another may infringe -- just as would translating a novel from French to English. Independent Creation is Permitted. A second work, identical to an earlier copyrighted work, does not infringe, if it is, in fact, independently created. While a well-known first work of a very unique or fanciful kind may make an independent creation defense difficult to believe, the problem may be more complicated with regard to some kinds of software. Assume that, code has been copied with slight variations from the original, and it is claimed that function dictated form. A practical cure for the problem of showing that a work was in fact copied is to embed "identifiers" such as misspellings and useless loops or variables. The objective is to hide them so that they will show up in copies which are claimed to be, but are not, independently created. If so, the issue will no longer be the alleged copier's credibility. I think this pretty much says I can (legally) independ
Hi John, Do keep in mind that copyright is one thing and patent law quite another. best, Bill
"Many : not conversant with mathematical studies, imagine that because it [the Analytical Engine] is to give results in numerical notation, its processes must consequently be arithmetical, numerical, rather than algebraical and analytical. This is an error. The engine can arrange and combine numerical quantities as if they were letters or any other general symbols; and it fact it might bring out its results in algebraical notation, were provisions made accordingly." Ada, Countess Lovelace, 1844
-
Fair Use - does not apply. Independent Creation - does not apply. You are not independent to the original creation. An example of this is AMD creating x86 processors that duplicated Intel's functionality. AMD had to go out of their way to find engineers with no prior knowledge of Intel's chip designs. Expressions are Protected, not Facts or Ideas - This should cover what you want to do. As long as you are rewriting from scratch, with no reference to the original code, you should be ok. However, you should get legal advice ... blah blah blah.
John Simmons / outlaw programmer wrote:
wrapping a given file with vendor-configurable encryption scheme
No offense, but that doesn't sound patentable to me.
...cmk The idea that I can be presented with a problem, set out to logically solve it with the tools at hand, and wind up with a program that could not be legally used because someone else followed the same logical steps some years ago and filed for a patent on it is horrifying. - John Carmack
cmk wrote:
No offense, but that doesn't sound patentable to me.
None taken, but the subject of patenting wasn't my idea. I don't personally support the idea of software patents.
.45 ACP - because shooting twice is just silly
-----
"Why don't you tie a kerosene-soaked rag around your ankles so the ants won't climb up and eat your candy ass..." - Dale Earnhardt, 1997
-----
"The staggering layers of obscenity in your statement make it a work of art on so many levels." - J. Jystad, 2001 -
PIEBALDconsult wrote:
My feeling is
Not a defence in law. Whatever you think you may be entitled to do, if it contravenes the laws of your country then you are at fault and can be sued for millions. I would not advocate taking the risk.
Did you miss the part where I said I don't care? :-D
-
Let's say I was working for a company a year or two ago, and during my tenure there, I came up with a configurable encryption mechanism that involved wrapping a given file with vendor-configurable encryption scheme. This way, the software could only be decrypted by software provided by the vendor, yet regardless of the encryption configuration used. Now, let's say that some software was being written that used this encryption system, but before it could be released, the company in question went out of business. Patent filing was discussed (before the company went under), but as far as I can find, it was never done. I realize there are no lawyers here, but does anyone think I would be violating any copyrights or anything if I were to write an article here about the encryption method I developed? I would be going completely from my memory of the code. BTW, the encryption system wasn't going to work for what they wanted, but they wanted it done, and this was the best I could come up with. The actual encryption mechanism worked great, what they wanted it for prevented other types of security to be used. They were streaming files over the web, and the decrypted files existed as temporary files on the user's hard drive. The company went under before we could try to address this issue (and truthfully, there was no fix for this issue due to extenuating circumstances).
.45 ACP - because shooting twice is just silly
-----
"Why don't you tie a kerosene-soaked rag around your ankles so the ants won't climb up and eat your candy ass..." - Dale Earnhardt, 1997
-----
"The staggering layers of obscenity in your statement make it a work of art on so many levels." - J. Jystad, 2001Its yours. A programmer doesn't let others lock his mind.
-
Let's say I was working for a company a year or two ago, and during my tenure there, I came up with a configurable encryption mechanism that involved wrapping a given file with vendor-configurable encryption scheme. This way, the software could only be decrypted by software provided by the vendor, yet regardless of the encryption configuration used. Now, let's say that some software was being written that used this encryption system, but before it could be released, the company in question went out of business. Patent filing was discussed (before the company went under), but as far as I can find, it was never done. I realize there are no lawyers here, but does anyone think I would be violating any copyrights or anything if I were to write an article here about the encryption method I developed? I would be going completely from my memory of the code. BTW, the encryption system wasn't going to work for what they wanted, but they wanted it done, and this was the best I could come up with. The actual encryption mechanism worked great, what they wanted it for prevented other types of security to be used. They were streaming files over the web, and the decrypted files existed as temporary files on the user's hard drive. The company went under before we could try to address this issue (and truthfully, there was no fix for this issue due to extenuating circumstances).
.45 ACP - because shooting twice is just silly
-----
"Why don't you tie a kerosene-soaked rag around your ankles so the ants won't climb up and eat your candy ass..." - Dale Earnhardt, 1997
-----
"The staggering layers of obscenity in your statement make it a work of art on so many levels." - J. Jystad, 2001If the company folded without unpaid debts, you might be OK, but if debts were traded or otherwise still exist, then the "owners" of the debts will likely come after you. And if you're thinking about "doing it a little bit different", don't. Even though it was your intellect that created the software, it is not your intellectual property, and, in reproducing it, you will be using the company's intellectual property (i.e. your intellect at the time when you originally wrote it). Have a lawyer find out the debt situation. If there are no creditors still using the company's debts as assets, then it's unlikely that there will be any trouble.
I wanna be a eunuchs developer! Pass me a bread knife!
-
I found this text on the net regarding US laws: Fair Use. Even with that in mind, there are further limits to copyright. For example, partial or limited reproduction of another's work may be permitted under the doctrine of fair use. This doctrine is especially liberal where the use advances public interests such as education or scholarship and specifically permits making a backup copy of a program. Further, sellers of utility software, such as clip art or programming libraries, should permit hassle-free distribution of non-competing works created by licensed users. [Programmers should seriously consider whether to use the work of publishers who assert additional rights.] Beyond fair use, still more fundamental limits to copyright protection should be considered. Expressions are Protected, not Facts or Ideas. The basic idea is easily illustrated: An author of an online story has protection for her words, but not for facts that she went to the trouble to collect or her basic plot. Similarly, a programmer has protection from others' duplicating a segment of code but not from their writing different code to accomplish the same end. Protection for facts as such is probably not available, and processes can be protected, if at all, only by trade secrets or patents. [For more on the last option in particular, see Seeking Cost-Effective Patents, right-hand navigation bar.] That said, caution is nevertheless warranted. Copying someone's creative presentation of facts could easily infringe. Also, merely translating from one language into another may infringe -- just as would translating a novel from French to English. Independent Creation is Permitted. A second work, identical to an earlier copyrighted work, does not infringe, if it is, in fact, independently created. While a well-known first work of a very unique or fanciful kind may make an independent creation defense difficult to believe, the problem may be more complicated with regard to some kinds of software. Assume that, code has been copied with slight variations from the original, and it is claimed that function dictated form. A practical cure for the problem of showing that a work was in fact copied is to embed "identifiers" such as misspellings and useless loops or variables. The objective is to hide them so that they will show up in copies which are claimed to be, but are not, independently created. If so, the issue will no longer be the alleged copier's credibility. I think this pretty much says I can (legally) independ
That's copyright law, not patent or intellectual copyright law. If you had written a story, and decided to write a similar story later, the codicils you cite would apply, but they don't apply to software. What you're talking about is writing an article that can be used by anyone in the world to illegally reproduce a product that is legally owned by someone else. Maybe you should put it on Rapisdshare, not CP.
I wanna be a eunuchs developer! Pass me a bread knife!
-
Let's say I was working for a company a year or two ago, and during my tenure there, I came up with a configurable encryption mechanism that involved wrapping a given file with vendor-configurable encryption scheme. This way, the software could only be decrypted by software provided by the vendor, yet regardless of the encryption configuration used. Now, let's say that some software was being written that used this encryption system, but before it could be released, the company in question went out of business. Patent filing was discussed (before the company went under), but as far as I can find, it was never done. I realize there are no lawyers here, but does anyone think I would be violating any copyrights or anything if I were to write an article here about the encryption method I developed? I would be going completely from my memory of the code. BTW, the encryption system wasn't going to work for what they wanted, but they wanted it done, and this was the best I could come up with. The actual encryption mechanism worked great, what they wanted it for prevented other types of security to be used. They were streaming files over the web, and the decrypted files existed as temporary files on the user's hard drive. The company went under before we could try to address this issue (and truthfully, there was no fix for this issue due to extenuating circumstances).
.45 ACP - because shooting twice is just silly
-----
"Why don't you tie a kerosene-soaked rag around your ankles so the ants won't climb up and eat your candy ass..." - Dale Earnhardt, 1997
-----
"The staggering layers of obscenity in your statement make it a work of art on so many levels." - J. Jystad, 2001Don't you remember that movie: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Paycheck_(film)[^] They have erased your memory before you left the company, and all you can think about now is a flawed algorithm... :)
You can't turn lead into gold, unless you've built yourself a nuclear plant.
-
Let's say I was working for a company a year or two ago, and during my tenure there, I came up with a configurable encryption mechanism that involved wrapping a given file with vendor-configurable encryption scheme. This way, the software could only be decrypted by software provided by the vendor, yet regardless of the encryption configuration used. Now, let's say that some software was being written that used this encryption system, but before it could be released, the company in question went out of business. Patent filing was discussed (before the company went under), but as far as I can find, it was never done. I realize there are no lawyers here, but does anyone think I would be violating any copyrights or anything if I were to write an article here about the encryption method I developed? I would be going completely from my memory of the code. BTW, the encryption system wasn't going to work for what they wanted, but they wanted it done, and this was the best I could come up with. The actual encryption mechanism worked great, what they wanted it for prevented other types of security to be used. They were streaming files over the web, and the decrypted files existed as temporary files on the user's hard drive. The company went under before we could try to address this issue (and truthfully, there was no fix for this issue due to extenuating circumstances).
.45 ACP - because shooting twice is just silly
-----
"Why don't you tie a kerosene-soaked rag around your ankles so the ants won't climb up and eat your candy ass..." - Dale Earnhardt, 1997
-----
"The staggering layers of obscenity in your statement make it a work of art on so many levels." - J. Jystad, 2001In my opinion, if the company went bust then it still has assets which can be redeemed by a liquidator, administrator or whoever. One of those assets would be its intellectual property and this could have anything from signiciant to little commercial value - on the other hand it would have little value if it was revealed in a CP article. I presume while you worked there you had some contract of employment and undertakings about the companies IP which you might breach if you wrote an article revealing the thinking etc. Just my tuppence worth
-
The legal issue is not of the code but of technique. The code might be different but the technique might be same, so that will be a problem.
FYI: Techniques cannot be copyrighted. They can be patented.
-
That leaves me, more confused. :) I guess if your company complains or sends lawyers after you, you can always remove the article.
John Simmons / outlaw programmer wrote:
.45 ACP
What is your opinion on Berretta PX4 Storm Sub Compat[^]? Do you have any other favorite compacts/sub-compacts?
I use Kimber Ultra Carry CDP in .45ACP. easy to coneal and fairly intimidating looking at the business end. Regardless of size or make(I've had horrid luck w/ Taurus, Kahr and KelTec) one thing that seems to help is one of those laser grips. Crimson Trace is the big maker but i'm sure you can find em for just about everything. I've seen guys causin problems and 3 cops had guns drawn and pointed, but he wouldnt stop, a 4th cop came up switched on his laser and the guy instantly calmed down and did what he was told. I've heard similar stories from a bunch of different LEOs.
Please remember to rate helpful or unhelpful answers, it lets us and people reading the forums know if our answers are any good.
-
In my opinion, if the company went bust then it still has assets which can be redeemed by a liquidator, administrator or whoever. One of those assets would be its intellectual property and this could have anything from signiciant to little commercial value - on the other hand it would have little value if it was revealed in a CP article. I presume while you worked there you had some contract of employment and undertakings about the companies IP which you might breach if you wrote an article revealing the thinking etc. Just my tuppence worth
:thumbsup: Do you have any contact at all with those failed :(( business owners ?? So it was a small ? Co., and those folks left to go do what..??...open a carwash X| Well, we all know security is the/a big-deal; and nobody would say we need to stop developing this aspect of our webworld. Go for it ! Who knows, as you start dredging up bits from your memory you just may have the epiphany to make this a killer program/app & make us all safer for awhile !! -just my humble opinion :suss:
-
Let's say I was working for a company a year or two ago, and during my tenure there, I came up with a configurable encryption mechanism that involved wrapping a given file with vendor-configurable encryption scheme. This way, the software could only be decrypted by software provided by the vendor, yet regardless of the encryption configuration used. Now, let's say that some software was being written that used this encryption system, but before it could be released, the company in question went out of business. Patent filing was discussed (before the company went under), but as far as I can find, it was never done. I realize there are no lawyers here, but does anyone think I would be violating any copyrights or anything if I were to write an article here about the encryption method I developed? I would be going completely from my memory of the code. BTW, the encryption system wasn't going to work for what they wanted, but they wanted it done, and this was the best I could come up with. The actual encryption mechanism worked great, what they wanted it for prevented other types of security to be used. They were streaming files over the web, and the decrypted files existed as temporary files on the user's hard drive. The company went under before we could try to address this issue (and truthfully, there was no fix for this issue due to extenuating circumstances).
.45 ACP - because shooting twice is just silly
-----
"Why don't you tie a kerosene-soaked rag around your ankles so the ants won't climb up and eat your candy ass..." - Dale Earnhardt, 1997
-----
"The staggering layers of obscenity in your statement make it a work of art on so many levels." - J. Jystad, 2001If you want to do more than write an article about it - make some money, maybe - then why not buy the rights off the company receivers? Something along the lines of "Hey, dude, I wrote some stuff for XYZ company which never worked and looked like it never would but I'd like to try something new on it, can I buy the rights to it for some small sum of money?" Finding realisable assets in a software bankruptcy is hard, they might take some cash and clear you away legally.
-
You would need specific legal advice, but a general rule of thumb is all things done whilst you were employed by the company belong to that company unless explicitly stated otherwise. Even if the company has folded, this would still be seen as an asset for administrative purposes. I write as an accountant, not a lawyer. If there were debts owed when this company crashed, then this software may be sold/licenced to cover these debts, the liquidators would ensure all assets were realised efficiently. Alternatively, you could write something 'similar' but not close enough to be infringing, (look and feel), and that may be ok. As I say, take professional advice on this.
------------------------------------ In science, 'fact' can only mean 'confirmed to such a degree that it would be perverse to withhold provisional assent.' I suppose that apples might start to rise tomorrow, but the possibility does not merit equal time in physics classrooms. Stephen J Gould
Dalek Dave has pretty much nailed the legal aspects. The company did not patent the concept which would have protected the idea regardless of how it is expressed (assuming a patent could be granted). Therefore the only existing IP consists of a copyright. Copyrights apply to the expression of an idea, not the idea itself. Therefore one could (most likely) express the same idea in a different format legally. The "most likely" qualifier is because the courts have not been consistent in interpreting how different the format has to be. A photo of a painting is clearly different from the painting itself. A movie is clearly different from a book. But is a program written in C different from one written in C++ if they are otherwise identical? Now consider the practical aspects; If the company is truly defunct and there is no successor owners, than your exposure is minimal. Especially if there is no patent, since any successor will probably not be familiar with the copyrightable specifics of your prior efforts. From a practical stand point a successor is very unlikely to pursue any action against you since they would need to become aware of 1) your prior efforts on and 2) your current efforts. Not very likely in the aftermath of a failed company. Assuming they did claim an infringement, the most they can pursue is a copyright infringement and even that would be questionable provided you don't lift the code directly. I would say re-write it and go for it.
modified on Monday, November 9, 2009 7:33 PM
-
I found this text on the net regarding US laws: Fair Use. Even with that in mind, there are further limits to copyright. For example, partial or limited reproduction of another's work may be permitted under the doctrine of fair use. This doctrine is especially liberal where the use advances public interests such as education or scholarship and specifically permits making a backup copy of a program. Further, sellers of utility software, such as clip art or programming libraries, should permit hassle-free distribution of non-competing works created by licensed users. [Programmers should seriously consider whether to use the work of publishers who assert additional rights.] Beyond fair use, still more fundamental limits to copyright protection should be considered. Expressions are Protected, not Facts or Ideas. The basic idea is easily illustrated: An author of an online story has protection for her words, but not for facts that she went to the trouble to collect or her basic plot. Similarly, a programmer has protection from others' duplicating a segment of code but not from their writing different code to accomplish the same end. Protection for facts as such is probably not available, and processes can be protected, if at all, only by trade secrets or patents. [For more on the last option in particular, see Seeking Cost-Effective Patents, right-hand navigation bar.] That said, caution is nevertheless warranted. Copying someone's creative presentation of facts could easily infringe. Also, merely translating from one language into another may infringe -- just as would translating a novel from French to English. Independent Creation is Permitted. A second work, identical to an earlier copyrighted work, does not infringe, if it is, in fact, independently created. While a well-known first work of a very unique or fanciful kind may make an independent creation defense difficult to believe, the problem may be more complicated with regard to some kinds of software. Assume that, code has been copied with slight variations from the original, and it is claimed that function dictated form. A practical cure for the problem of showing that a work was in fact copied is to embed "identifiers" such as misspellings and useless loops or variables. The objective is to hide them so that they will show up in copies which are claimed to be, but are not, independently created. If so, the issue will no longer be the alleged copier's credibility. I think this pretty much says I can (legally) independ
Even though patents and copyright might not apply, you might want to go through the contract you had with the company. I imagine that this must be a commonish situation (to what extent you own the knowledge that you gathered while with a particular employer). Though I guess if the company no longer exists you're unlikely to be persued for potential breaches of contract.
-
Let's say I was working for a company a year or two ago, and during my tenure there, I came up with a configurable encryption mechanism that involved wrapping a given file with vendor-configurable encryption scheme. This way, the software could only be decrypted by software provided by the vendor, yet regardless of the encryption configuration used. Now, let's say that some software was being written that used this encryption system, but before it could be released, the company in question went out of business. Patent filing was discussed (before the company went under), but as far as I can find, it was never done. I realize there are no lawyers here, but does anyone think I would be violating any copyrights or anything if I were to write an article here about the encryption method I developed? I would be going completely from my memory of the code. BTW, the encryption system wasn't going to work for what they wanted, but they wanted it done, and this was the best I could come up with. The actual encryption mechanism worked great, what they wanted it for prevented other types of security to be used. They were streaming files over the web, and the decrypted files existed as temporary files on the user's hard drive. The company went under before we could try to address this issue (and truthfully, there was no fix for this issue due to extenuating circumstances).
.45 ACP - because shooting twice is just silly
-----
"Why don't you tie a kerosene-soaked rag around your ankles so the ants won't climb up and eat your candy ass..." - Dale Earnhardt, 1997
-----
"The staggering layers of obscenity in your statement make it a work of art on so many levels." - J. Jystad, 2001There are two issues here, the possible patent of the technique you developed, and the copyright. If they filed a patent and you used the same technique to do the encryption then you would be infringing on their patent. Since they did not file a patent, you're probably safe on that front. As for the copyright, as long you aren't copying the code from the original you are not violating the copyright. If you start from a blank project and write the code from memory you are creating a new work for which you own the copyright. If copyright laws worked in a way that prevented you from writing something from scratch that you had written before we'd all be out of jobs. Imagine what the world would be like if you could not write a data access layer for Company A because you wrote a data access layer for Company B and they owned the copyright to that work. The last thing to consider is what you're going to do with this work. If you are just going publish an article to demonstrate an interesting technique, you are unlikely to see any legal trouble from the patent or copyright lawyers. At the most you might get a firmly worded letter telling you to take down the article. The place you might run into some trouble would be with any non-disclosure agreements you may have signed. I'm not a lawyer, but I have had a few go arounds with some clients over who owned the copyright to code. I was happy to hand over the code if/when I was paid, but they somehow felt they owned the copyright and demanded the code without payment...WTF?
-
There are two issues here, the possible patent of the technique you developed, and the copyright. If they filed a patent and you used the same technique to do the encryption then you would be infringing on their patent. Since they did not file a patent, you're probably safe on that front. As for the copyright, as long you aren't copying the code from the original you are not violating the copyright. If you start from a blank project and write the code from memory you are creating a new work for which you own the copyright. If copyright laws worked in a way that prevented you from writing something from scratch that you had written before we'd all be out of jobs. Imagine what the world would be like if you could not write a data access layer for Company A because you wrote a data access layer for Company B and they owned the copyright to that work. The last thing to consider is what you're going to do with this work. If you are just going publish an article to demonstrate an interesting technique, you are unlikely to see any legal trouble from the patent or copyright lawyers. At the most you might get a firmly worded letter telling you to take down the article. The place you might run into some trouble would be with any non-disclosure agreements you may have signed. I'm not a lawyer, but I have had a few go arounds with some clients over who owned the copyright to code. I was happy to hand over the code if/when I was paid, but they somehow felt they owned the copyright and demanded the code without payment...WTF?
Sorry I'm late to the thread, but I don't see anyone having pointed out that US patent law doesn't prevent you from publicising the method, only from implementing it. If the company had patented the method, the code would essentially be part of the publicly available patent claim. I'm not sure how "implementation" is defined in software. Is the patent violation committed when someone compiles the code, or when the person uses the compiled code? Is simply writing source code a violation of IP or just a statement of what is protected by the patent that doesn't even exist?
