Slashdot Mirror
Are 'Server Emulators' Legal?
Ashran: "I'm one of the lead developers on the EverQuest server emulator at HackersQuest. What I've wondered is, whenever creating an server emulator is legal in the U.S. It is legal here I live, but new team members might be from the U.S. We've received a few 'Cease and Desist' e-mails from the CEO of Verant, but we've ignored them all up to now. Does anyone have any experience in this field?" For those of you curious as to what a "server emulator" is, check out yesterday's article on the recent beta release. Well, at least Hemos gets his wish and now knows what Verant's reaction is.
You have lawyers going after you...
Talk to a lawyer! ASAP!
Get together with a lawyer that specializes in this type of law, and get them to consult and advise you on the issue. Knowing what your rights are is critical to your business and your personal welfare right now, do not act on the advice of a bunch of computer hackers. Some of the comments here appear to be informative, but I am not qualified to judge their merits, and neither are you. Don't fuck around with your legal rights and liabilities; bring in the professionals and do it right.
If you choose to go with the legal opinions of anonymous kernel programmers, you do so at your own peril.
IANAL, and Ask Slashdot most certainly is not either.
Which flavor of IP? Copyright, trademark, patent or trade secret?
switch (IP) {
case ("copyright") :
It is not a violation of copyright to
reverse engineer computer code. If it is
done in a double-blind fashion,
copyright is moot.
case ("trademark") :
Don't use the Everquest name to market
the product, or explicitly and
consistently disclaim that Verant/Sony
has no affiliation and does not condone
the product.
case ("patent") :
Well if it is patented, you're up a
creek. I don't think it's patented,
though, because I don't think it's
patentable. I'd be happy to be
demonstrated wrong.
case ("trade secret") :
It isn't a secret if you published it.
Even with a no reverse-engineering
clause in the EULA, because that's a
legally weak argument (and that's an
understatement.)
}
(what happens if someone downloads the emulator, gets hold of a load of Nazi content and creates "Holocaust Everquest"? Shouldn't the owners have the right to prevent that?)
Only in that the product would clearly be a misappropriation of their trademark. Call it GEORGE-3D and you're off the hook.
I take the Perl source code to Slashdot, port it to Python (this would be a good idea anyway) and don't release the source.
If you ported it, you own the copyright, you've got control of the code. This can be challenged by Andover, perhaps by saying that a translation of their work violates their copyright like a translation of Hitchhiker's Guide to the Galaxy into Icelandic would be, and they may win, but only because you didn't do it in a double-blind fashion. Let's just say you wouldn't necessarily lose.
I don't need large brains to have a good time.
EULAs are of questionable legal standing outside a couple of states here, and reverse engineering a protocol could in no way be viewd as bypassing any sort of copy protection so you should be clear of any DMCA nastiness that's found its way outside the US. Check with your friendly EU/WIPO representative to be sure. Personally I'd tell the guys at Verant to blow you and merrily post their E-Mails on your web site.
However
Why not use your formidable programming talents to help the WorldForge project instead, providing a completely unencumbered and free client and server? Users of your EverQuest server software are going to invalidate their license and Verant might get nasty and start cancelling their accounts. They apparently don't seem to think that they can compete in terms of creativity, world design or game balance or they'd just be ignoring you.
Editorial/Opinion/Rant/Flame
Of course, I have Linux and Only Linux on my system, and there never was a Linux port of EverQuest, so the guys at Verant can blow me, too. I did have UO for a while, until they stopped maintaining the Linux client after which I dropped my account, so the guys at Origin can blow me too. And while we're on the subject of blowing me, the guys at the RIAA and the MPAA can blow me, too. And all the congress people who've been allowing the corporate erosion of the Bill of Rights can also blow me. And the WIPO and the ICANN can blow me too. There needs to be a lot of blowing going on, yessir...
I'm trying to teach myself to set people on fire with my mind... Is it hot in here?
This is one of the reasons that double blind reverse engineering is a huge deal.
IANAL:
Way back to the IBM PC days people wondered how to clone something that had restrictive licenses and not get sued (Or at least win in the event). The solution is creating a double blind.
The proccess is simple, but needs two very seperate parts. This is basically how IBM BIOS was originally reverse engineered.
Person A owns the product in question. This person is charged with writing a specification. "When XXXX is sent to the computer YYYYY should respond back based on ZZZZ" This person isn't writing any code. They are simply documenting a specification.
Person A hands the spec to Person B. Person B is a programmer. They create a program based on the Spec that Person A has created. Person B should not touch the product at all. They shouldn't interact. If they need testeding then they need Person C to test the product.
The main goal to all of this is to isolate the programmer from the product you are reverse engineering. This avoids both copyright and License issues at bay.
In this case I think you're screwed. Even if you had a legal chance there hasn't been much throught about how to isolate programmers from liability.
On the plus side, you can't take the pee out of the swimming pool. So even if you cease and disist someone could pick up the code and continue working on it.