| Neil Kurzman 04/10/07 23:40 Read: 714 times Ny USA |
#136957 - The story of Compac Computer. Responding to: Ralph Sac's previous message |
Why the socalled IBM PC clone was not infringing.
The method was to have one group with the PC write the specifiction for the software (reverse Enginner it). A Second group wrote the new BIOS to this specification. The Hardware in this case was not special. New (not copied) boatds where made. This works for copywrites, not Patents. This of course assumes that you have enough money to prove you did it right in court. ( Never take legal advice from the Internet) |
| Topic | Author | Date |
| 89C2051 unlocked and copied | John Garrett | 04/08/07 09:47 |
You'll prolly find that the have set the security  | Jez Smith | 04/08/07 10:04 |
| CPU Compare | Joe Gold | 04/08/07 10:59 |
| Unlock at89c2051 | Bert Van Den Berg | 04/08/07 13:39 |
| Proof | Joseph Hebert | 04/08/07 14:29 |
| Close But Far Away | Michael Karas | 04/08/07 14:41 |
| Several Steps for the Next Product | Michael Karas | 04/08/07 21:43 |
| might I suggest... | Mike Stegmaier | 04/08/07 21:54 |
| anything else would be outright silly. | Erik Malund | 04/09/07 06:36 |
| please explain | Stanley Lio | 04/09/07 14:16 |
| try this | Erik Malund | 04/09/07 14:51 |
| an idea | Mike Stegmaier | 04/08/07 21:37 |
| I dont know how this is going..... | John D. Maniraj | 04/09/07 02:51 |
| the cost of copying | Jan Waclawek | 04/09/07 12:39 |
| It makes little sense ... | Richard Erlacher | 04/09/07 13:13 |
| Too optimistic ? | Christoph Franck | 04/10/07 00:57 |
| another way?? | Andy Curda | 04/09/07 13:45 |
| I beg to differ.... | Michael Karas | 04/09/07 22:11 |
| protection *scheme*? | Jan Waclawek | 04/09/07 23:05 |
| I absolutely agree, Michael | David Smith | 04/10/07 10:10 |
| COPYING YOUR PROGRAM... | Raghuram Radha | 05/04/07 08:48 |
| OR | Neil Kurzman | 05/04/07 10:29 |
| easily fixed with a soldering iron | Erik Malund | 04/09/07 06:40 |
| Some ideas | Jerson Fernandes | 04/08/07 23:48 |
| re:copied software | John Garrett | 04/09/07 05:20 |
| find out if you want to prove if the code is assem | Erik Malund | 04/09/07 06:53 |
| Excellent point! | Joseph Hebert | 04/09/07 07:33 |
| legit or not | Neil Kurzman | 04/09/07 14:43 |
| Re: Re: Copied software | Bert Van Den Berg | 04/10/07 01:25 |
| A guess | Erik Malund | 04/10/07 09:34 |
| Are you sure | Oleg Sergeev | 04/09/07 07:58 |
| Am I a pirate? | Muhammad Fauzan | 04/10/07 03:24 |
| In the US | Neil Kurzman | 04/10/07 18:25 |
| I don't understand part | Ralph Sac | 04/10/07 22:46 |
| The story of Compac Computer. | Neil Kurzman | 04/10/07 23:40 |
| an example of legal reverse engineering | Erik Malund | 04/11/07 07:09 |
| Would this be an example legal reverse engineering | Ralph Sac | 04/11/07 18:09 |
| I can't tell | Erik Malund | 04/12/07 05:56 |
| find out what the purpose of a patent is | Richard Erlacher | 04/12/07 11:49 |
| You still did not answer question | Ralph Sac | 04/10/07 09:29 |
| Copied software | John Garrett | 04/10/07 14:11 |
| copying | Bruce Revor | 04/10/07 15:44 |
| You cant prove anything | Ap Charles | 05/05/07 01:19 |
| copying products | Kshrip Kumar | 04/11/07 00:12 |
| Sad | Steve M. Taylor | 04/11/07 04:44 |
| but true ... | Richard Erlacher | 04/11/07 10:03 |
| Copying From School Days | Arif Deshmukh | 11/11/08 08:49 |
| What they can do | Andy Peters | 11/11/08 17:03 |
| Oops! See next message! | Richard Ries | 11/11/08 11:12 |
| Style can help | Richard Ries | 11/11/08 11:22 |
| There IS a way to survive | Richard Erlacher | 11/11/08 18:58 |
| Support, support, support! | Kai Klaas | 11/12/08 05:49 |
| You're right, of course, but ... | Richard Erlacher | 11/12/08 08:12 |
| Nothing more annoying ... | Christoph Franck | 11/13/08 06:36 |
| Yes, if this is the only "support" he gets from you... | Kai Klaas | 11/13/08 07:18 |
Well, there is support and then there's handholding | Richard Erlacher | 11/13/08 09:10 |