| John Garrett 04/08/07 10:47 Read: 2398 times Montreal Canada |
#136813 - 89C2051 unlocked and copied |
I have a question regarding the security of an Atmel 89c2051.
My company designed a product that uses this device back in 2006. Sales have been ordinary, nothing spectacular. In the fall of 2006, another company started making a knockoff of our product, and they are selling the product for a great deal less than we are. My associate (my techie) and I quickly purchased the knockoff and discovered that it also uses an atmel 89C2051. The circuit has been changed around a little however the pinout is EXACTLY the same, the components are a little different, but basically they are doing the same thing. I just don't know how to prove that they have copied our software, without reading their 89C2051. WE would immediately carry forth legal action once we are 100% sure that they have copied our software. In fact there are rumors coming from a reliable source that they are indeed using our software without one single byte of code changed. We cannot afford to spend a great deal of money to have the device reverse engineered because we are a small company. Our sales were average until this other company came about. I am also not very pleased about spending big money on a lawyer to fight this. I did briefly speak to an attorney and he advised me that without adequate proof, there is a possibility that they could win. We have since changed to another design, using another microcontroller and were offering free upgrades to the existing customer base, but the other company (I cannot afford to mention any names here until I have 100% proof) is selling the knockoff 50% less than we are, so no matter what, we are in trouble for any future sales. I have a few questions. I would like to know how we can read the software in the knockoff just to be sure that it is ours, and then we can proceed to take legal action. I know that it will cost a great deal of money for legal action, but it would be well worth it if I have 100% proof that our software has been stolen. Secondly if anyone can do this for me, Please send me an email. I would not need the software, just one particular segment (our copyright string) embedded within the flash memory. Please let me know if you are willing to help, or give me any suggestions. I certainly hope I have not offended anyone here. Thank you to everyone and Happy Easter! Regards, John Garrett Montreal, Canada you can email me at: jgarrett321@yahoo.com |
| Topic | Author | Date |
| 89C2051 unlocked and copied | John Garrett | 04/08/07 10:47 |
| You'll prolly find that the have set the security | Jez Smith | 04/08/07 11:04 |
| CPU Compare | Joe Gold | 04/08/07 11:59 |
| Unlock at89c2051 | Bert Van Den Berg | 04/08/07 14:39 |
| Proof | Joseph Hebert | 04/08/07 15:29 |
| Close But Far Away | Michael Karas | 04/08/07 15:41 |
| Several Steps for the Next Product | Michael Karas | 04/08/07 22:43 |
| might I suggest... | Mike Stegmaier | 04/08/07 22:54 |
| anything else would be outright silly. | Erik Malund | 04/09/07 07:36 |
| please explain | Stanley Lio | 04/09/07 15:16 |
| try this | Erik Malund | 04/09/07 15:51 |
| an idea | Mike Stegmaier | 04/08/07 22:37 |
| I dont know how this is going..... | John D. Maniraj | 04/09/07 03:51 |
| the cost of copying | Jan Waclawek | 04/09/07 13:39 |
| It makes little sense ... | Richard Erlacher | 04/09/07 14:13 |
| Too optimistic ? | Christoph Franck | 04/10/07 01:57 |
| another way?? | Andy Curda | 04/09/07 14:45 |
| I beg to differ.... | Michael Karas | 04/09/07 23:11 |
| protection *scheme*? | Jan Waclawek | 04/10/07 00:05 |
| I absolutely agree, Michael | David Smith | 04/10/07 11:10 |
| COPYING YOUR PROGRAM... | Raghuram Radha | 05/04/07 09:48 |
| OR | Neil Kurzman | 05/04/07 11:29 |
| easily fixed with a soldering iron | Erik Malund | 04/09/07 07:40 |
| Some ideas | Jerson Fernandes | 04/09/07 00:48 |
| re:copied software | John Garrett | 04/09/07 06:20 |
| find out if you want to prove if the code is assem | Erik Malund | 04/09/07 07:53 |
| Excellent point! | Joseph Hebert | 04/09/07 08:33 |
| legit or not | Neil Kurzman | 04/09/07 15:43 |
| Re: Re: Copied software | Bert Van Den Berg | 04/10/07 02:25 |
| A guess | Erik Malund | 04/10/07 10:34 |
| Are you sure | Oleg Sergeev | 04/09/07 08:58 |
| Am I a pirate? | Muhammad Fauzan | 04/10/07 04:24 |
| In the US | Neil Kurzman | 04/10/07 19:25 |
| I don't understand part | Ralph Sac | 04/10/07 23:46 |
| The story of Compac Computer. | Neil Kurzman | 04/11/07 00:40 |
| an example of legal reverse engineering | Erik Malund | 04/11/07 08:09 |
| Would this be an example legal reverse engineering | Ralph Sac | 04/11/07 19:09 |
| I can't tell | Erik Malund | 04/12/07 06:56 |
| find out what the purpose of a patent is | Richard Erlacher | 04/12/07 12:49 |
| You still did not answer question | Ralph Sac | 04/10/07 10:29 |
| Copied software | John Garrett | 04/10/07 15:11 |
| copying | Bruce Revor | 04/10/07 16:44 |
| You cant prove anything | Ap Charles | 05/05/07 02:19 |
| copying products | Kshrip Kumar | 04/11/07 01:12 |
| Sad | Steve M. Taylor | 04/11/07 05:44 |
| but true ... | Richard Erlacher | 04/11/07 11:03 |
| Copying From School Days | Arif Deshmukh | 11/11/08 09:49 |
| What they can do | Andy Peters | 11/11/08 18:03 |
| Oops! See next message! | Richard Ries | 11/11/08 12:12 |
| Style can help | Richard Ries | 11/11/08 12:22 |
| There IS a way to survive | Richard Erlacher | 11/11/08 19:58 |
| Support, support, support! | Kai Klaas | 11/12/08 06:49 |
| You're right, of course, but ... | Richard Erlacher | 11/12/08 09:12 |
| Nothing more annoying ... | Christoph Franck | 11/13/08 07:36 |
| Yes, if this is the only "support" he gets from you... | Kai Klaas | 11/13/08 08:18 |
Well, there is support and then there's handholding | Richard Erlacher | 11/13/08 10:10 |



