Slashdot Mirror
Legal Issues of Opening Up Proprietary Standards?
mrjb asks: "The Alesis HD24 is a 24-track, hard disk audio recorder with a built-in 10 megabit FTP server. To improve on file transfer speed, Alesis offers an external Firewire drive with a program called FST/Connect which reads the disks under Windows. I've contacted Alesis about a Linux solution, but none is planned. Also, they are (understandably) not very eager to reveal the file system specs. After a few days of staring at hex codes, I now know enough about the FS to read HD24 IDE disks under Linux (no Firewire required). As I know I benefit from the efforts of the Samba and OpenOffice teams, I'd love to share this info. I'm not, however, the least bit interested in Alesis suing me (in fact, I might want to send them my CV at some point). What would your advice be in such a delicate situation of conflicting interests?"
BTW, the article doesnt have a link for some of us lazy folks...
Here is a link to the product (Alesis HD24)...
Just curious... how can you prove that you didnt have any inside information on the specs and that you decoded it all by yourself?
Find an anonymous ftp site that accepts this kind of information for this area, which in turn will be let loose into the wild.
Reverse Engineering is generally not illegal.
But, to CYA, your best bet is to just write up the specs as you understand them, then have someone else write the driver for the community.
You don't even have to share those specs. Give the author the specs, have him write the driver, then publish it, without your specs. Now, anyone who wants to reverse engineer the driver you wrote, is investigating a full layer of indirection from you. They're not even looking at the specs you wrote, but rather the code that was written upon those specs.
I am unamerican, and proud of it!
I believe that even in the US with the DMCA you're still protected here - reverse engineering for reasons of compatibility is nearly always legal and is subject to special protections.
Wouldn't this fall into the fair use catagory? I mean if you purchase the equipment then don't you have the right to be able to use it?
I love random hex numbers! Just like this one, 09f911029d74e35bd84156c5635688c0.
That's all.
I think there's a pretty large precedent in play. While it might not be *exactly* defensible legally, there are plenty of examples. Off the top of my head, there's the iPod Linux project, plus the large majority of hardware drivers for Linux itself.
IANAL, don't do anything based on slashdot. But if you determined all that stuff without access to any proprietary documents, then you are free to do release it. Reverse engineering is still legal. If you had access to someones proprietary information, however, then you'd better not or talk to a real live lawyer who can give you legal advice.
I think the only sticky part may revolve around the DMCA if by releasing this info you are enabling piracy. It doesn't look like it, but someone may try to wrap it that way. The law probably says this is always wrong. If you aren't afraid to get drug through the mud, and if your intentions are truly honest, that law could be knocked down as illegal. It's untested and unfair, hence it's not likely to stay. But if your intentions aren't pure they'll fry you on other counts and you'll wish you stayed quiet.
Write up a spec sheet, get onto an anonymizer service, and e-mail the specs to either someone interested in writing a driver, or a hobbyist e-mail list. Or write the driver yourself and publish the source in the same manner. Either way, just use an anonymizer service.
If you're looking to take credit for it, well, (possibly) getting sued is the price you pay for fame.
occultae nullus est respectus musicae - originally a Greek proverb
If I were you I'd be awfully careful with what you are doing. Maybe you could just release some sort of closed source linux tool to allow access to this device so your needs are met, and even send it to them so they can release a linux client if they want.
No matter what your feelings are on patent and IP, you still need to tread lightly with their stuff. Esp since you probably contacted them with email so they have documented proof that you went and asked 1st, knew they didnt want to release one, so then set out to reverse engineer it anyway.
But, kudos to you. I'd go the honest route with them, send them your source, say here ya go, I did this cause I LOVE your product and want to use it with Linux, I hope you can appreciate that, and make this available to your customers like me.
This article has recently been linked from Slashdot. Please keep an eye on the page history for errors or vandalism.
As always, this is not legal advice, if you get legal advice on Slashdot, get your head checked.
If you reverse engineered their disk standard by yourself, you are fine legally, There's nothing illegal about reverse engineering (exception copy restriction technology per the DMCA). Now if you used some of their developer docs or something to do it you could be on the hook if they made you agree not to use them for reverse engineering before giving them to you. However if this was all on your own, then there's no worries.
Now, this doesn't mean they can't sue you it just means they won't win if you are competently represented. They could still file a suit and it probably would get past inital hearings, so you'd actually have to fight it in court.
As for employment, well if you release this and it pisses them off then you can expect they won't employ you, and they'll be within their rights to do so. So if you are seriously thinking about getting a job with them, you might want to reconsider.
Something else I will point out, though I am not advocating, is that the Internet is large, spans international borders, and is not well monitored. If you don't care about credit and don't do things to draw attention to yourself (like posting on Slashdot) there's no reason you couldn't do an anonymous release on a website in a country that doesn't much care, like Russia.
I don't understand what your concern is. You're not under an NDA, presumably, so I don't see where there's any legal issue at all. The part about maybe wanting a job there is another matter, obviously. (IANAL, also obviously...)
What I'm listening to now on Pandora...
Try emailing a public contact at Samba and see if they can give you any advice. They obviously had to figure this out a long time ago.
You could also contact a lawyer.
The global economy is a great thing until you feel it locally.
Post the info anonymously to a few NGs, Forums etc. with a request for it to be passed to anyone interested - let someone else take the risk..!
Give the info to a friend in another country that is not bound by that silly DMCA thing.
Before he does that, what he really ought to be doing is talking to an attorney. An attorney can give you advice on what measures you can take to minimize your legal exposure here. That advice may include what you need to do to assure that you've done this in a clean manner. Having specs you hand off to somebody else may not provide the kind of validation that is needed.
In the end though you can do this 100% on the up and up and still get sued. A good lawyer will tell you that. Will they win the lawsuit? Not if you do this right, but then how many thousands of dollars will you blow defending the lawsuit, whether you win or not.
Whatever you decide to do an attorney can give you a clear perspective on what the ramifications are.
This sig has been temporarily disconnected or is no longer in service
Why not get your working driver, and email the company asking if they would release a driver written by you in any form. Then negotiate either payment, or open-ness.
...but they'd be unlikely to offer you a job if you have publically denied them of revenue.
It's your call - and totally separate from the legal argument.
Depends on all kinds of circumstances. The number one is whether or not there are patents involved. How you obtained the information needed to create compatible drivers is important too, as what you may have done up to that point. For example, if you accepted a EULA under windows before poking around the device using Linux, then a lot may depend on the circumstances of the EULA.
/. folks advice on this is like finding a bomb in a movie theater, then defusing it, taking and audience poll as to whether, according to their memories of old movies with UXBs in them, you should cut the red wire or the blue wire first.
Asking
It seems to me common sense dictates one of three approaches:
(1) Walk away.
(2) Cover your tracks. (e.g., release specs through an elaborate process of anonyization)
(3) Cover your ass. (i.e., talk to a lawyer who at least knows the right question to ask; getting permission also falls into this category, but makes approach 2 harder).
Speaking of the last, some smart lawyer might drum up business by doing an IP question of the month feature, suitably whitewashed the way psychologists' case studies are.
Post may contain irony: discontinue use if experiencing mood swings, nausea or elevated blood pressure.
You might want to investigate how the people writing Linux drivers for the Broadcom bcm43xx ( Airport Express ) went about it. One team sticking to write the specs, and a seperate one working from the specs into a working driver.
http://linux-bcom4301.sourceforge.net/go/progress
Easy, dude. Write up the specs, hop onto someone's open wireless network, and post the file online from there. ;)
The music industry is notoriously "closed mouthed" about letting anyone know how their electronic products work at a technical level. Ever since the mid 80's or so though, companies have been reverse-engineering these instruments and devices, and *selling* commercial products that work with them, not to mention work on freeware projects along the same lines.
For example, I used to own a Roland S-50 sampling synthesizer. It saved its sample data on 720K 3.5" floppy disks. But people with PCs quickly realized it would be much more useful if you could take standard WAV sound files and dump them into the synth via MIDI. Many other makes and models of sampling synths and rack-mounted samplers were in the same boat. The manufacturers (like Roland) had poor documentation for the MIDI "system exclusive" commands that would be required to upload or download the sample data, so a few people worked at reverse engineering all of this on their own. Eventually, prodcuts were sold like "SampleVision" which knew how to do this for many dozens of samplers on the market.
Rather than being sued, it seemed like the synth makers actually ended up endorsing the products, providing links to them from their own web sites - because they learned it made their products more desirable to purchase.
Even if the onus of proof is on the prosecution, that won't stop them from creating a long, drawn-out trial that will bankrupt the defendant before the case even gets close to providing justice. So yes, in an idealistic world where lawyers don't require money and time is not an issue, the onus is on the prosecution. However, we don't live in that world, and unless he can prove very quickly that the case has no merit, he's going to get the legal crap beat out of him, regardless of whether or not he's done anything wrong.
It's better to vote for what you want and not get it than to vote for what you don't want and get it.
- E. Debs
What you have done is to exercise what in most countries would be considered a protected statutory right. If you asked them for the information {which you are entitled to by law: if you own the device, then you are privy to any secret it may embody} and they refused, then that might even be considered estoppel authorising the use of reasonable force. So publish the information on a server located outside the USA. Get your code tried out on other OSes, including the BSDs. Have someone else, preferably also located outside the USA, publish a review of the device in question and specifically mention your code by way of Linux compatibility.
Of course, if you have the balls, just send a copy of your work to the manufacturers and ask them to include it for download on their website and with future revisions of the driver CD.
Je fume. Tu fumes. Nous fûmes!
Publish and be damned.
I understand the value of this question as a conversation topic, but..
Honestly, the best thing you can do is talk to a professional that actually knows something about this, rather than a whole bunch geeks who have nothing better to do than post stuff on Slashdot that is highly apocryphal, or at least wildly inaccurate, especially considering that a lot is at stake here for you.
Register the editry.
If you really did a clean room reverse engineering, you have nothing to worry about; although if you're concerned, post the info somewhere anon. On the other hand, if you used privledged documentation to help you understand the FS, you now know not to do that next time: never taint a reverse engineering attempt by looking at things you shouldn't.
And if they don't offer you a 300k salary, hold the source as a hostage^H^H^H^H^H^H^H negotiation tool.
Buy a Nintendo DS Lite
Chapter 12's permission vis-a-vis reverse engineering for compatibility purposes refers to copy protection and issues pertaining to copyright, not generic protocols:
0 1
http://www.copyright.gov/title17/92chap12.html#12
Scroll down to "(f) Reverse Engineering." This section has to do with permitting one vendor to reverse engineer protected/encrypted content.
The notion of reverse engineering a driver for a pipeline which does not encrypt or otherwise disguise its content is theoretically outside the aegis of the DMCA.
Apple used (or misused, depending on your perspective) the DMCA against the OSx86 website because it infringed on protection measures Apple specifically set in place to prevent OSX from installing on whiteboxes. Real told its board members that they might be DMCAed over Fairplay because it unlocks copy protection on iTMS purchases.
If the submitter did not discover any authentication methods or trust related protocols in his reverse engineering, and his driver does not have code which specifically spoofs a platform or other form of identification, it sounds to this non-lawyer like a non-issue.
There may be other legal issues at hand, but AFAIK the DMCA is chiefly concerned with those who circumvent deliberate measures to protect copyright, and simply refusing to publicly document a protocol isn't the same thing.
Now, if the driver somehow replicates code that the vendor had to *license* from Microsoft, Microsoft may have an issue with you. Again, check with a competent IP attorney.
"Made up/misattributed quote that makes me look smart. I am on
Please, ho, please, forget about this. Unless you're ready to provide support for all those dummy Knoppix users, keep the thing Windows-only, unless, of cours, you really wish to be damned by the poor Bobs.
Why don't you write it anyway (strictly for your own use, to start with), and then once it is working well (and you are happy with it), pitch it back to the manufacturer?
t er, but assuming you find someone with some imagination, they might actually help you with it (or indeed, if you are really lucky, employ you...)
If you look at it from their perspective: through reverse-engineering, you have created a driver for their product which potentially extends the market of that product for no up-front cost to them. What's more, assuming you don't release it into the wild without their consent, you have given them a chance to decide how they want to proceed with it -- you are playing fair with them.
Worst case, they get all legal about it, and cease/desist/wash-your-mouth-out-with-soap-and-wa
Cliff, for the last time: stop accepting Ask Slashdots that want legal advice. Or else you'll be consulting a lawyer yourself!
Send your code to DVD Jon and let him loose it upon the world.
That might work against him, and I would say check with a lawyer first. They might say he was blackmailing him or something.
Fuck 'em!
Fuck 'em right in the BUNGHOLE!
To give you a little bit of perspective, I've worked for several Alesis dealers, the first back in 1985 when they were just getting off the ground.
The company loves to sue. LOVES to.
And they don't particularly care about the consequences, even if it hurts them. I've watched them pull product from major accounts because they'd gotten into some tiff with the store over policy.
I'd keep your discovery under wraps.
And, for what it's worth, I'd avoid working there.
Boycott everything - they're all trying to fuck you one way or another
remove your name from the source code
zip the source code
rename it pamela anderson new video (2006)
share it on kazaa, dc++, bittorrent, etc, etc, etc
The folks who hack Dish Network DVR receivers to let you read and retrieve the data from them do this exact same thing. They analyzed the hard drives, figured out the file system, figured out the video formatting, and wrote tools to extract, decipher, and transfer to a PC. See the DishRip Yahoo forum for more information.
All of this is absolutely 100% legal because they only touch those Dish Network DVRs that have no data encryption . They are (rightfully so) ruthlessly intollerant of anyone trying to hack the encrypted boxes (i.e. most all of the newer ones), as it could get their forum shut down.
In the case with this article, reverse engineering for compatibility reasons is supposed to be legal. But, if the company is encrypting the data on the disk, you could run into DMCA trouble, even if the "encryption" is very very simple.
(Alternatively, if it is your data that is encrypted, i.e. audio recordings that you created, you might have a legal case for decrypting them. The wording of the DMCA IMO seems to make it pretty clear that the copyright-protection-circumventing laws only apply when the materials being encrypted are protected by copyright. Release your audio into the public domain and crack away.)
It doesn't hurt to be nice.
Normally I don't feed trolls but this cracked me up. First he doesn't care bout blacks. Then he doesn't care bout whites. I needed a good laugh. Thanks.
Charles Wyble System Engineer
Fair use does not exist... or at least that's what Jack Valenti thinks.
Circumcision is child abuse.
http://www.alesis.com/product.php?id=1
The previous link provided has broken menus at the top.
SCO, Microsoft, P2P, what's your hot button?
Mining
The signal to noise ratio makes it pretty useless.
I am not a lawyer, and you shouldn't be one either!
"A microprocessor... is a terrible thing to waste." --
GeneralEmergency
The fair use principle applies to copyright, not reverse engineering.
IANAL so advise you to either talk with the Samba team and their reverse engineering attempts and more appropriately to contact a lawyer. Having said the above though. Your efforts at reverse engineering sounds similar in the methods used by Samba, which is a look at what goes across the wire kind of thing. If you did not disassemble any of their code and similar things I don't see how anyone can come after you.
My karma is not a Chameleon.
Don't be a whiny brat. Be an adult and make some choices about your priorities. Which is more important to you, avoiding possible lawsuits and possibly working for the company, or helping an open source project or two.
You can't have both. Grow up.
Copyrights are one thing, but the words "patent pending" are a totally different world. Depending on which parts of this system they're shooting for patents on, the idea of reverse engineering could be totally moot.
If the mechanism for storing the infomation on disk is patented, reversing the data on the disk could or could not be against patent. There won't be any DMCA violation, but they could sue you for licensing at any price they felt agreeable.
The problem with current patents is this: A patent, if not reverse engineered properly, can end up being reengineered too closely to the original patent. And these days, the application process for patents has fallen into disrepair so far that patents can be quite vague intentionally, which makes things even worse for a reverser.
Be careful, and good luck. Best case, you're dealing with something that the company doesn't really even care about. Worst case, they've patented a specific PLC that encodes the data some special way and then bursts it to the disk. Hopefully, it's best case, but we wary of the worst.
Galen
In your face, and always right!
Just tell RIM it's a blackberry competitor. bye bye patent.
Slashdot has just been trolled.
His first mistake is posting is publicizing his indecision. This tells me this guy is just trying to establish a reputation, and has no intention of sharing his work.
If I were him, I would have posted the code to newsgroups anonymously. Then sent an anonymous e-mail to the relevant linux maintainer/developer. They can't catch you if you don't leave any cookie crumbs to follow.
Despite reply after reply saying 'IANAL but... screw the corporations!!!1', you're answering your own question - wouldn't you be annoyed if someone did this to you? Would you employ them?
There's no law against farting, but letting one out at the end of an otherwise-succesful job interview's not going to get you far...
Ok Rule #1, DO NOT TRUST legal Advice on Slashdot...
This is a good place for the debate of such a topic, but don't screw with your life based on the post of other Slashdotters, even myself.
#1 Seek legal advice
#2 Then proceed by probably making 'reasonable' inquires to the company expressing that if they don't support linux would they be willing to support 3rd party work that does. (After getting legal advice to help with the inquiry.)
See, here is the problem, many have correctly stated things like certain types of reverse engineering is 'acceptable', but there are reasons most products EULAs and such prohibit reverse engineering.
Lets take your senerio for example, maybe there are 'other' reason the company doesn't support Linux, it could be something they deem a secuirty risk, or other threat, or even a threat to their intellectual property.
Don't get fooled by any post here telling you it is ok or benign, they don't know enough and you don't even know enough.
Protect yourself, and you might find you could talk the company into supporting or paying you for your time in developing a reasonable Linux solution for their product. But have legal advice along the way.
I thought the deal with DMCA was you are allowed for your OWN uses to do it, but can't redistribute your findings.
IANA scum sucking L caveat emptor, always check with your bartender for more accurate legal advice, closed track, etc.
Why not ask them for permission to write a linux driver. Altought the chances may be small (I don't know), it's worth the money you invest in it (0, niks, nada, nopes, nothing...)
"Cliff, for the last time: stop accepting Ask Slashdots that want legal advice."
Anyone who believes that this is the last time this will be said, please raise your hand. I'd like to sell you a bridge.
"So first off, anyone who "asks slashdot" about legal issues is asking for public opinion, not legal fact. I did not need to preface this with "IANAL", but I did so to call attention to the fact that slashdot is the wrong forum."
Doesn't stop people from ignoring that fact.
"Second, reverse engineering IS legal. "
Within limits.
"
Third, the DMCA makes reverse engineering copy protection methods illegal. "
That's *assuming* the file format is a copy control device. I think it's a trade secret.
"Fourth, you don't need to be a lawyer to make statements about what is right. "
You do if your actions (potential) will put you in contact with the law. There's nothing to flapping one's gums in a public forum however. As the saying goes, "words are cheap".
"Very often the written law is well behind public opinion, and one way that changes is by forcing it."
That's *assuming* that public opinion is an accurate reflection of "equally and fairly". Best way to think about the process is putting out a theory, without the peer review by those best qualified.
The point of proving that he did not have insider information is to protect him from the accusation of trade secret misappropation.
However, IIRC, that would be the extent of what they could go after him for unless he stole actual code.
IANALBAFS.
Sell the company a Linux implementation. You make money, the company makes money, everyone is happy.
Obviously the company might not be all that willing to do that, but if they are, it's a win-win situation.
In Soviet Russia, I ruled you
If your going to go down that road do some reading up on Abstraction filtration comparison first, then throw a little reverse engineering into the search to get some more specific info.
thank God the internet isn't a human right.
I've owned Alesis Equipment, mainly effects pedals. They were HORRIBLE, hissed and generally sucked. If you found a way to get it working, keep it for yourself, and don't give them any single byte of it. Don't release it, either, I hear Alesis has had many lawsuits put out on others.
In Soviet Russia, Alesis writes to YOU! (j/k)
Still waiting on Serviscope_minor to wake up to fucking reality and realize that Jessica Price isn't going to fuck him.
I'm just a programmer, not a laywer. I have no interest in such matters. I'd just release it and then when I get a Cease and Desist I'd take it down. Write up a nasty note about how it's unfair and move on with my life. Someone in a country with more freedoms might pick up the project where I left off. (from Russia perhaps)
And even though you got a C&D letter, you can still put it on your resume/CV. And some companies will hire someone just because he reverse engineered their stuff. It's pretty rare that they hold a grudge, but honestly most companies completely ignore all that when you're applying for a job. Most sane companies expect people with no legal training to have fallen into these sorts of things, CEOs barely understand the issues around copyright and patent laws. As long as you comply completely with the C&D letter, it won't reflect negatively on you.
Hopefully the company has no grounds to send you a C&D letter (file systems aren't patentable. only the processes necessary to use the filesystem are). A read-only version of the file system is almost always perfectly legal. It's writing that can get sticky with patents. In many cases you can write, but you can't use some unique feature (resource forks, snapshots, long filenames, etc). And it's usually too hard to come up with a scheme for writing that is completely different, yet compatible.
Writing up a spec for the filesystem and discussing it's advantages and disadvantages so open source people could design their own file system might be a more worthwhile venture. Generally a reimplementation of a filesystem is different enough to side-step patents. And it's best if you totally ignore the patents, because they would certainly influence your design decisions. You're a programmer, not a lawyer. As soon as you start doing a lawyer's job you open yourself up to litigation.
IANAL!
WAFL is another fun filesystem. It's for a totally different use than yours. But it also has patents on it, making it difficult to support in an Open Source operating system.
“Common sense is not so common.” — Voltaire
A EULA usually specifies that the buyer agrees to not reverse-engineer.
OK, so Person A buys, and Person B comes along, just a nosy friend, and does the reverse-engineering.
Person B releases the information. If it is "proprietary", it is NOT protected information. If they had wanted it protected, they would have copyrighted it or patented it, and thereby have released the data.
In this particular case, the reverse-engineer is also the buyer. He should lend his system to some other competent Person B, who independently would spend "a few days staring at bytes". No copyright can prevent Persons A and B from swapping systems for a few days.
Scary as that may be, that's how the world works. You can be sued for pretty much anything and while you may not lose if you can afford to fight it, you still have to afford to fight it.
A good illustration of this comes from an experience a friend of mine had totally outside the realm of intellectual property. They were trying to extend a covenant in a neighborhood. Somebody who lived in the neighborhood resented the covenenant and sued. Fine, but then they also sued all the members of the neighborhood board personally for libel. There was zero libel or evidence there of, but of course then the individual board members had to defend libel lawsuits. No matter how frivolous they were, it costs money to defend a lawsuit.
During this who affair, my friend's home insurance covered their legal fees. But then the insurance company didn't want to be on the line for defending a libel case. So what did they do? They sued my friend to get out of having to pay the legal fees. My friend ended up settling with the insurance company saying that the insurance company didn't have to cover any more fees and my friend would owe them nothing for what they had already paid.
So in the end, from one legal dispute, three lawsuits emerge, and two of those suits were at best frivolous, taking advantage of the cost of a lawsuit as a tool to try to extract concessions.
This sig has been temporarily disconnected or is no longer in service
I can't see why any company would want to put out a free fix for something that they make a lot of money selling. What's to stop someone from just writing the same code for Windows and killing all their sales of the Firewire unit? Look at it this way, what reasons do they have not to sue you? Kindness?
If you really consider working for the company, I think you'd be hard pressed to come up with a worse first move than to go behind their backs to reverse-engineer the product. It may be legally OK, but it will not endear you to management, even if they do not consider it worth the effort to sue you. They won't trust you again, ever. And forget about doing it anonymously and applying for a job there anyway. I strongly doubt your hack will stay secret for too long once you start discussing technical details with your new co-workers.
J
If you believe in the _ideals_ of Free Software then you should release your code under the GNU licence without breaking the law.
If you just want to give back to the community with little obligation on your own part then release it anonymously and let someone else run with it.
If you're looking for work then by all means contact the company, show them what you did and explain to them why they should pay you to maintain their linux drivers -- if they're smart they'll recognized a great opportunity to expand into a market that they didn't otherwise have time or resources to pursue. If that fails then figure out what you really want to do, write your resume, and apply to a company that is actually doing something cool and can recognize real talent, like Google or Linden Lab.
Religion is poison to rationality, and we lose sight of that at our own peril. -- Lurker2288
In the US the same person can't disassemble and examine as the person whose writing the new code.
;)
If all you did was look at the file system, you're ok (but you have to prove that.) If you disassembled their windows driver, then all you can do is make a spec like the parent said.
It's the same way Compaq cloned the IBM PC Bios. They had to setup a clean room environment for the actual developers handing them only the spec written by the disassemblers.
But most importantly, talk to a lawyer
yes... give me money or i will increase the value of your product!.... that will scare them
Snowden and Manning are heroes.
"With their patent-pending method of writing to the hard drive HD24 and HD24XR are the first hard disk recorders built from the ground up"
So, go look up the patent (not need to do any reverse engineering and send it off to someone who lives in a country that doesn't have software patents. They will then be free to write a driver, but you won't be able to because you live in the US and have silly patent laws.
They may try and sue your arse if you send them a linux driver and ask them distribute it because you've already infringed upon their patent.
Note, it looks like the patent is still pending as none of the patents listed seem to be for a file system.
thank God the internet isn't a human right.
Release it pseudonymously, or have someone front for you, like Jon Lech Johannsen (sp?) fronts for MoRE. I'd be happy to act as an anonymizing layer between you and your release agent, if you wish.
-I like my women like I like my tea: green-
Where are you?
In some countries it is legal to reverse engineer for compatibility. I agree with the previous posters - talk to an IP lawyer.
If you release the specs you are likely to cop at least a threatening letter, which should be enough to blacklist you as an employee.
How about sending them a letter stating that you understand the system, and would be interested in working with them or for them to develop Macintosh and Linux compatibility. The music industry understands Macs.
Norman Cook's Ode to Sl
First off, decide if you can afford to fight a lawsuit. If not, there's really no point seeking legal advice on how to minimize your legal exposure; it's all or nothing.
As to working for them, consider whether your real initials are "JB". If they are, you've probably already screwed the pooch; they're not going to employ you. Sending in your résumé in the next 6 months would just be saying "Here's my address to send the cops to".
Frankly, in the current legal climate, if I ever reverse engineered something, I wouldn't even bother asking—I'd release it anonymously via an open wireless network or Internet café somewhere distant from my home.
GCHQ Quantum Insert installed. If only our tongues were made of glass, how much more careful we would be when we speak
For all you know, they might like to sell the things to Linux users, and just be waiting for someone to show up who could help them. There is no way they will sue an employee. It is the safest place to be, if that is what you fear.
Generally speaking, if a company wants to make it difficult for you to use their product in some way that you consider important, the right thing to do is to not do business with them. That way you don't run into all of these hairy legal issues. Honestly, it's just not worth the trouble - why would you even want to go down this road?
Reverse engineering their product may be legal, depending on the jurisdiction in which you live. Litigating it will cost you more than you can afford, unless you're rich.
If you want to get a job there, you definitely mustn't release this stuff - given their (weird) stance on patents and file formats, it's extremely unlikely that the management there would let you be hired even if the geeks there were impressed with your work.
If you are afraid of legal consequences just don't release the driver to public. I wouldn't risk it as it seems that Alesis loves to sue.
But the queston here is: Are you in it to benefit Linux users, or to have the glory of being the one who hacked their file system?
Case 1: Ask the company if they'll let you release your Linux version which should increase their sales. If no, ask DVD Jon to release it anonymously for you.
Case 2: You're probably screwed since reverse-engineering is now highly punishable in the USA, and if you want your name seen on it then you are declaring yourself lawyer-bait.
"It's the height of ridiculousness to say for those 9 lines you get hundreds of millions."
I'm not a lawyer, but I'm pretty sure that nobody else here is either. If you want legal advice you can rely on in a court of law, you should ask a lawyer.
-russ
Don't piss off The Angry Economist
I thought Linux stopped allowing anonymous contributions for this very reason.
-- 'The' Lord and Master Bitman On High, Master Of All
Getting a little off topic, but I was looking at buying either a Mackie SDR2496 or the Alesis mentioned, and went with the Mackie mainly because it uses standard IDE drives in Lian-Li compatible caddies with FAT32 file systems. I've built my own firewire caddy and now have the same kind of features as the Alesis. OK, the Mackie doesn't have a ethernet or an FTP server (it has USB instead), but 10mbit is largely pointless for transferring multitrack 24/96 data.
So most of your post doesn't really apply. Sorry. I only noticed this b/c another post further up linked to the product page.
[Fuck Beta]
o0t!
Unless he signed an NDA, he's free to do whatever he wants, as long as it dosn't violate their copyrights. (If you're wondering, the reason Compaq was so careful about their clean-room implementation was that their BIOS was certain to duplicate IBM's BIOS, which was published openly. They only way they could prove they weren't violating copyrights was to prove no one on their team had ever seen it)
autopr0n is like, down and stuff.
In particular, I'm thinking of application 20030223409, available here.
Maybe someone with more background in the field can give a better answer, but it seems as though what they're describing is a system where you use Ethernet transcievers to send time-division multiplexed data as a constant stream rather than packets. I find it very hard to believe that nobody has done that before, given that almost all multichannel digital audio systems (I think) are TDMA.
If anyone knows of clear prior art, here's your chance to nip an abusive patent in the bud.
"Ladies and gentlemen, my killbot features Lotus Notes and a machine gun. It is the finest available."
First thing you need to do is talk to a lawyer specializing in IP and patents. The company's very likely to try legal action against you if you release your driver, and you're going to need legal advice and help to deal with them. A couple of questions:
The main point above is that you're in for legal flack even if you're completely in the clear, so talk to a lawyer first.
Release the solution in a nation that is not DMCA friendly.
It really is that simple.
Good day.
This is not legal advice.
Presumably there is a Linux market that could take advantage of the Alesis product, which means there are other pro audio companies besides Alesis that are interested in Linux. Find one of them and pitch your idea. If they see some financial advantage they could take care of the legal side and you might get a job with them. It sounds like you wouldn't be very happy at Alesis from other people's comments.
If you go it alone you stand a good chance of getting sued and no chance of getting a job from Alesis.
The driver gets written, the company has no reverse-engineerer to sue.
A bit late now though since you brought attention to yourself via Slashdot. You could probably even count on getting sued if it is ever reverse engineered by someone else even if you had nothing to do with it.
The suit against BSD unix by UI claimed this theory that one who had seen unix code was "contaminated" and could not write a non infringing other unix version. The lawsuit was in part about that and the fact UI got beaten so badly is an indication that you certainly CAN write a program like one you have seen. You just can't copy it or rewrite while referring to it. That is, it is OK to acquire skills and use them, just not OK to copy. The idea you have to have a "clean room" derives from some belt 'n' suspenders done to make it easier to see that the result could not conceivably have been copied. There are a number of simple questions that can show when a rewrite occurred; copying, for example, generally makes a testing / debugging period short or nonexistent.
Sorry, on what planet will Alesis want to sue someone for publicising a driver that OPENS UP A NEW MARKETSPACE FOR THEIR HARDWARE? 1) Make really cool hard disk 2) Prevent Linux users using our product 3) Profit!
- Sig files: contemptibly familiar the second time around.
I think the idea is you assign copyright anonymously to DVD Jon, he now has copyright over it, and releases it under his copyright.
What could be better than a jet powered motorcycle? http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=u8l6GTHLSWE
I did almost exactly the same thing with the Yamaha AW4416 multi-track recorder. I reverse engineered the proprietary file format and wrote software to read it. I feared that Yamaha may not like the idea too much, so I contacted them. I got through to some of the engineers at Yamaha (and went for a tour of the Yamaha factory in Japan!) In the end I got them to sanction my work, but I had to sign an NDA. They even provided me with the original filesystems specs, which were actually more poorly documented than the work I had already done. So I guess I would try to work with Alesis and see if they can help now that you have proven you are more than a hack trying to get information.
I also went through a similar ordeal with Doepfer musikelektronik, and in the end shared code and ideas with one of their engineers.
Most of these small(ish) companies realize their users are priority one.
cheers
I'd start by posting about it on a widely read public forum and giving enough details about yourself that the company could easily figure out who you are just on the basis of the post. If that won't have them banging down your door for your resume, nothing will! Companies love that sort of thing.
Why not ask the EFF? They have worked with similar issues in the past. If you look at the topics list on the right side of their page you will see many areas related to what the poster is asking about: DMCA, Intellectual Property, Patents, and Reverse Engineering. http://www.eff.org/about/contact/
If Alesis sue you, they have to sue you over something. Over what? What would be their claim? What would be the law that you presumably had broken?
If it were leaked, wouldn't the author hide that information to avoid being sued?
This is about making the world better, right? Not recognition?
Blar.
In the US civil courts, anyone can sue anyone else for anything they dream up. Doesn't have to be factual, can easily be bogus and without merit. BUT the party on the receiving end then has to spend time and money defending themselves, even if they win. So, even if he consults a lawyer, even if he writes a spec then has someone else write a driver, even if he is 110% on the up and up legal, he can still get sued and have to spend his life savings defending himself. He may win, but end up bankrupt for his efforts. It's like SLAPP suits. Businesses sue you to shut you up. Unless he receives written permission from Alesis to release the thing, he stands the chance of being sued. So, how does he get the driver or code onto circulation without having the spectre of a lawsuit hanging over his head? Release it anonymously, through some web site over in Russia or some other country that is beyond the reach of US law. If he covers his tracks well, there will be no proof or evidence that it came from him. Once it is released and a few guys download it, it will show up on web sites elsewhere, and by then it's too late, the horse is out of the barn. Alesis will have nobody to sue, they won't be able to tell where it came from. It's sad to have to resort to tactics like this, but with the way the US legal system works, with Republican bias for large corporations, it's the only sure fire way to CYA.
Let's chuck all this talk about lawyers and reverse engineering and talk about wins and losses.
You've written a program in Linux to read data off a "special" hard drive. How much does their Windows program cost. Will they lose money if you give yours away?
Does putting the data on Linux rather than Windows cost them revenue from whatever they sell or recommend to edit the data?
Does having the data available on Linux make sense? Are there any tools to edit the data which are at least as good as the Windows tools? Can they make money off of a Linux platform?
Thanks for letting me state the obvious.
You'd be suprised. Some people value control over what many might think to be their best interests.
Information wants to be free.
Entertainment wants to be paid.
You just want to be cheap.
Could you provide a reference to the particular law and section?
Bright Tunes Music v. Harrisongs Music, 420 F. Supp. 177 (SDNY 1976), upheld on appeal as ABKCO Music v. Harrisongs Music, 722 F.2d 988, 221 USPQ 490. The key finding of law in Bright Tunes was that subconscious copying is actionable infringement. The dirty/clean room structure of a reverse engineering operation is a way to eliminate possibility of subconscious copying by eliminating possibility of the clean room engineers' access to the copyrighted work under analysis. Though this works in software, it unfortunately does not work in music because commercial FM radio puts the whole world in the dirty room.
>>> "The Patent will protect the device no matter how public knowlege its interface is!"
...
You're quite right, indeed
One makes a deal when you get a monopoly on a technology via a patent. You give full-disclosure in exchange for the monopoly. Hence the interface, if patented, is public knowledge - that's half of the original intent of patents ("Letters Patent", means "open letter").
I'm sure Maxxuss will get it out there...
No, you're absolutely right. SCSI *was* a much better transfer method for moving sample data on and off of samplers/sampling synths, but it wasn't always an option. The Roland S-50 certainly didn't offer it. I believe SampleVision did support SCSI transfers in cases where it was available though.
You also have to realize that samples were much smaller in those days. The typical sampler was running the equivalent of an Intel 286 series CPU - and your storage media only held 720K per diskette, including the data telling it which range of keys to assign samples to, etc.
In 30 years I worked for 7 different companies. Alesis was by far the best.
Contribute to civilization: ari.aynrand.org/donate
By asking 'everyone in the world except alesis' rather than fronting up to alesis, CV in hand, I think you have rather shot yourself in the foot regarding any possibility of making a positive impression on them.
... ? Don't infringe their copyright, and you are fine.
...
;) Seems more like something you told yourself after the fact, when you were scared they might sue your arse and you were looking for a way out ... but don't worry about it, they can't and they won't, and if you have these skills, you don't need to try to lever this at all, just publish and move on to the next project, and people will recognise you as a solid and generous developer with practical experience, insight and understanding.
So, forget that avenue, and now think, "how can I make the best of what I have achieved, reverse engineering this tech?"
I would recommend setting up a sourceforge project, divorcing yourself of any potential earnings from the actual reverse engineering of the product, and promote it genuinely as what you seem to want to provide: an open source tool for accessing that closed-source technology.
Don't look on it as a direct route to anything, and there is very little they can do about it without making themselves look nasty. No idea what they can actually do about it if they do want to look nasty, but I think if you let them know in the kindest possible terms what you have done and that you don't intend to keep it under the rug, and sell the idea to them as 'look at the extra users you get, for free!', they should be OK with it.
Personally I don't think there is anything they can do to you unless you signed an NDA, which I gather you didn't
But like I said at the start, if what you wanted to do was use this as a way to impress them into giving you a job, you went wrong when you asked slashdot wtf
So I doubt that you were that set on that idea anyway.
Warmonger DeathfromBelow
No, the correct answer (from the Alesis point of view) is:
1) Make really cool hard disk
2) Allow public specs for the disk and protocols
3) Watch as 3rd party companies release cheap clones that work with their audio gear
4) Loose profit
Way to submarine some quality open-source projects with patented code.
Go to a library, sign up for a hush mail account, get a prepaid credit card that you fund with cash from a currency exchange somewhere, and set up a news group account...
post the code.
shred the credit card - toss bits and pieces of it into trash cans all over the place, and even in the sewers... never use the hush mail account again. Stay out of the currency exchange for about 9 months...
Or write an article and send it into 2600 anonymously...
Send it to Prof Felten - the CSS guy...
Send it to DVD Jon...
Pick up a wireless card cheap, change the MAC, and use some fools open wireless connection to post the code... just don't do it from your idiot neighbor... go somewhere geographically distant from your home base...
print that code on handbills and POST it on poles, etc... send it to college kids and ask them to join the fight and post it around campus...
think!
Fuck this shortsighted bunch of fools... post the code...
Dear Anonymous Coward;
through the PATRIOT ACT we have managed to find your IP address and will seek $20 million in punitive damages of using our name See, Kourt and Relativity, SK&R.
See you in court.
Patent pending !== patented.
Everybody knows they are incompetent swines but the patent office may still reject patent applications because they are too obvious or non-inventions.
This space is intentionally staring blankly at you
Why not send your code and request to DVD Jon? Isn't releasing legally questionable code his specialty? He has the experience, the balls, and legal protection.