Slashdot Mirror

← Back to Domains

Domain: jmusheneaux.com

Stories and comments across the archive that link to jmusheneaux.com.

Comments · 12

  1. Re:Proof? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0 · on Legal Issues of Opening Up Proprietary Standards?

    There is a classic case on this matter, circa 1982. Compaq had to reverse engineer the IBM BIOS to make their "portable" computers.

    In short, one engineer had to figure it out. Then, another had to build the BIOS chip from that spec.

    Here is one reference: http://www.jmusheneaux.com/01.htm#1a

  2. Re:Hear me, Slashdot! by kwerle · · Score: 3, Insightful · on OSx86 Shutdown Rumors Explained

    Back in the day, Compaq built an reverse-engineered BIOS in order to run IBM-DOS on Compaq systems. They won the legal fight, and it opened up a new era in computing.

    http://www.jmusheneaux.com/01.htm#1

    They also took the legal approach: 2 team cleanroom engineering. Legal then, and probably legal today. While I have not looked at the OSX hack sites, I doubt that's what they're doing. They're probably taking the OS, disasembling it, patching it, and releasing the patches.

    The correct approach would be to start from scratch and write an OS that could load and execute OSX programs (which would be similar to the WINE project, I imagine), or load the whole OS without modifying it.

  3. Re:Very, very simple.... by WhiteWolf666 · · Score: 2, Interesting · on OSx86 Cracked Again

    Not that simple. May I point you at history?

    http://www.jmusheneaux.com/01.htm#1a

    IBM only wanted DOS to run on PCs. Official, IBM branded PCs.

    Compaq decided to reverse engineer the PC bios, in order to offer 100% PC compatible machines. They succeded, and won the lawsuit. This is a benchmark case in computing.

    Now, the legal issues were different. I'm not sure what the IBM EULA was. Either way, I suspect that the portions of the EULA specifying what hardware you can use the software on are not enforceable; otherwise, we'd see Apple going after the PearPC people, and we'd see Apple going after Maxxuss.

    Sure, they can make it hard. But I suspect if someone actually built a 100% compatible Apple "clone", apple would be powerless to stop it.

  4. Re:Where's the money? by skoaldipper · · Score: 1 · on Microsoft Helps Makers Defend Against IP Suits
    I was hard pressed to find a case with Microsoft as the plaintiff too. Most people just pay licensing fees to Microsoft instead of stepping into the court arena with that legal juggernaut. And with over 3000 patents and more granted each year, I'm sure Microsoft has issued several cease and desist orders like this for the .ASF video format.

    As a defendant, of course, there are many MS has had to defend themself against; DRM, video, et cetera.

    Here's a link showing some timeline of Microsoft engaged in various legal battles since 1982.
  5. Re:Reverse engineering is... by sjf · · Score: 2, Informative · on Wine vs Windows Benchmarks

    NOT ILLEGAL ! (per se)

    That's why Intel has tried to sue the pants off AMD and has failed. Clean room reverse engineering is a technique that DOES permit invasive inspection of decompiled binaries and has been upheld as legal and legitimate, in possibly the most famous example of reverse engineering in moderm computing: the IBM/Compaq BIOS case.

  6. Since there's no limit to virtual processors... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0 · on Microsoft Adopts Virtual Licenses

    Microsoft can bill you as much as they want.

    Bill Gates just creamed his jeans.

  7. reverse engineering by zotz · · Score: 3, Insightful · on The SCO Boomerang and the Strength of Linux

    "Unless you have a problem with clean room reverse engineering"

    If he's got a problem with reverse engineering, he must be buying all of his PCs from IBM right? I mean, wasn't the BIOS reverse engineered?

    http://www.macintouch.com/pchistory.html
    http://www.macintouch.com/pchistory.html
    http://www.jmusheneaux.com/01.htm

    Links from a quick google sesssion.

    all the best,

    drew

    http://www.ourmedia.org/

  8. Re:Cool it? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0 · on Bruce Perens Tells Linus Torvalds To Cool It

    You say that as if reverse-engineering is something bad, though. I say the opposite is true - it's a good thing, as it furthers interoperability between different products and prevents vendor lock-in

    Yeah, it's amazing people even argue the point. Anyone with more than passing familiarity with the history of computing knows that the PC revolution was born when Compaq reverse engineered IBM's PC BIOS. http://www.jmusheneaux.com/01.htm. This is why "tired old debates" etc. should never go away. They're essential to the education of youth and the uninformed.

  9. Re:Home by freak4u · · Score: 3, Informative · on Longhorn to use UNIX-like User Permissions

    As the way it should be. This is the reason why I and I'm sure a lot of other people don't run windows. In Windows, anybody can muck up your system. In *NIX, it's a lot harder. Hell, the run as service doesn't even work very well in Windows. Speaking of, does anybody else notice how Windows is reverting back to UNIX? There is speculation that NT is based on VMS (VMS -> WNT is incrememnting a letter, check the safemode stuff with disk0/part1/ nix type stuff). further reading

  10. Re:The article needs to RTFA by muellerr1 · · Score: 1 · on Ready or Not, Here Comes Service Pack 2

    In my experience, most graphics departments use Macintoshes anyway.

  11. Not BSD- HP-UX and not WinNT!! by xtermin8 · · Score: 1 · on Linux on the Tipping Point

    Many BSD enthusiasts don't include Mac OSX or even Darwin as BSD. Definately not NT. the NT design team was led by David Cutler who also did VMS. http://www.jmusheneaux.com/WNT.htm

  12. Re:Well... for starters... by ajna · · Score: 2, Insightful · on Why MS is Not Opening More Source Code

    http://imprint.uwaterloo.ca/issues/100298/3Science /science01.shtml
    http://news.com.com/MS+to+invest+150+million+in+Ap ple/2100-1001_3-202143.html

    "Both Apple and Microsoft executives denied that the Microsoft investment represents a path to converging the companies' operating systems. However, they said they had agreed to work out a settlement to a long-standing dispute over whether Microsoft's Windows operating system infringes on any of Apple's patents."

    http://www.jmusheneaux.com/index02.htm#Major

    From the last link it's clear that Xerox lost, so the only FUD here is that of Xerox deserving credit.