Slashdot Mirror


Cisco Spending Millions of Dollars Secretly Purchasing New Juniper Products

FrankPoole (1736680) writes According to a CRN investigative report, Cisco has been spending millions of dollars over several years to secretly purchase Juniper Networks' products, including new QFabric and MX series routers, for use in its 'competitive analysis lab,' where the products are tested and reverse engineered. According to the report, some of the Juniper products purchased by Cisco were still in beta and not yet commercially released. In addition, CRN discovered that a main source for Cisco to obtain these Juniper products was, ironically, a company called Torrey Point Group, a fast-growing VAR that was awarded Juniper's Part of the Year in 2011.

120 comments

  1. And.. by oldhack · · Score: 4, Insightful

    Dogs lick their balls. What's new?

    --
    Fuck systemd. Fuck Redhat. Fuck Soylent, too. Wait, scratch the last one.
    1. Re:And.. by Penguinisto · · Score: 1

      Pretty much - I remember waaaay back to 2000-2001 when some contractor shared photos online of Microsoft buying Apple G5 PowerMac desktops by the pallet-load.

      ('course Microsoft showed no class at all in their response by firing the guy, but...)

      I figure Juniper will likely rethink their VAR relationship with Cisco's front company, though.

      --
      Quo usque tandem abutere, Nimbus, patientia nostra?
    2. Re:And.. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Dogs lick their balls. What's new?

      Why?

      Because they can.

    3. Re:And.. by NoNonAlphaCharsHere · · Score: 1

      It's because they can't make a fist.

    4. Re:And.. by sabri · · Score: 4, Insightful

      I figure Juniper will likely rethink their VAR relationship with Cisco's front company, though.

      Why? Juniper knows this might to happen. So why not make sure that Cisco pays top price rather than getting it from Ebay?

      QFX has been with customers for a long time now so I don't see a problem with that either. If a VAR can resell it to Cisco, it has been with early adopter customers for a while

      And what I don't understand is the part about reverse engineering. Yes, that may take place. But there is a very good other reason why every large vendor of routing equipment has competitive products in their engineering lab: interoperability. I have worked for two large vendors and have been in the labs of a few others and I have seen many interoperability labs. In fact, at one point in my career I was assigned to literally drag some equipment across the street to our direct competitor, install it in their lab and help them get some interoperability working (this was obviously to satisfy some issues we had with a large mutual customer). And for those interested, I crossed Holger Way and didn't stay in the parking lot :)

      Not to mention the fact that vendors ship a shitload of beta products every six months to the EANTC interoperability tests and other marketing events.

      --
      I'm not a complete idiot... Some parts are missing.
    5. Re:And.. by maliqua · · Score: 1

      because the bleeding edge juniper gear doesn't appear on ebay until its too late for them to do anything with the acquired knowledge

    6. Re:And.. by s.petry · · Score: 0

      And what I don't understand is the part about reverse engineering. Yes, that may take place. But there is a very good other reason why every large vendor of routing equipment has competitive products in their engineering lab: interoperability.

      I did not write TFA so don't know the true purpose for the spin, but as a hunch it's due to the Snowden leaks. Cisco did quite a bit wrong and lost people's trust. Even though you are correct that there are many reasons to purchase someone else' gear, software, etc.. people are going to assume the worst possible motive.

      Secondarily, if you want page hits you don't write fair articles. You focus all of your attention on the worst aspects possible to draw attention.

      I don't agree with any type of "spin", a company portraying Cisco as innocent is just as wrong as someone depicting the worse possible motives for everything is wrong. *shrug*, I'm not trying to make money off of page hits either.

      --

      -The wise argue that there are few absolutes, the fool argues that there are no probabilities.

    7. Re:And.. by kenh · · Score: 1

      You do realize Microsoft produces software for the Macintosh, right?

      --
      Ken
    8. Re:And.. by RobWright · · Score: 5, Interesting

      I wrote the article. First, I can tell you unequivocally that the Snowden disclosures had nothing to do with this article. Furthermore, I don't think the article makes a judgment about Cisco's part in this matter; in fact, the article cites a legal expert in tech IP who explicitly states that Cisco's actions are in no way illegal (even if the product was procured before it was commercially available) and that buying your competitor's works for testing and reverse engineering is a required practice in the industry and "part of what makes markets work." Second, I take issue with your characterization of the article as spin, and your assertion that fair articles don't get page views. Lastly, I get the distinct feeling that you did not read the article. I may be wrong about that, and if so, I apologize for the incorrect assumption. But given your claim that the article is Snowden-inspired when there's no mention of the NSA or Snowden in the article (not to mention the article is more about Torrey Point Group and Juniper than Cisco), surely you can understand why I made the assumption.

    9. Re:And.. by exomondo · · Score: 1

      Pretty much - I remember waaaay back to 2000-2001 when some contractor shared photos online of Microsoft buying Apple G5 PowerMac desktops by the pallet-load.

      For their Mac business unit you mean? You know the one that develops all that software for the Mac? They're going to have a hard time developing for a system they don't have.

    10. Re:And.. by s.petry · · Score: 3, Insightful

      Thanks for the comments, but I believe you misunderstood my post.

      The Title of the Slashdot post is "Cisco Spending Millions of Dollars Secretly Purchasing New Juniper Products". The primary topic of your article is Torrey Point, but here it's changed to Cisco. Your article was spun to make Cisco look bad on Slashdot, and a paragraph was plucked out of the article to extend that point.

      In other words, the primary purpose of my post was not your article but the Slashdot post and title. Whoever posted the article here wrote a title to ensure maximum exposure while posting the link.

      That said, your article is not free of bias. The title "In the Shadows" indicates the negative connotation, but I believe it's directed more at Torrey Point. It's hard to write objectively, especially considering Torrey Points actions.

      Where the article has some spin (just a bit, nothing like the Slashdot summary) is that Cisco is painted as doing things abnormal in the industry. I'd bet dollars to donuts that Juniper buys millions of dollars worth of Cisco products every few years, just like Ericsson buys competitive products, and Alkatel buys competitive products, and Microsoft buys competitive products, etc...

      Most of the time these purchases are not for reverse engineering. These purchases are either for benchmarking or compatibility testing.

      A few qualifiers would have made it more objective, but hell I'm not your editor and don't get paid to write.

      --

      -The wise argue that there are few absolutes, the fool argues that there are no probabilities.

    11. Re:And.. by Hamsterdan · · Score: 1

      Happens all the time. GM bought a couple of cars when Lexus brought out their first model to *study* them.

      "Approximately 5 percent of 1989 LS 400 sales went to buyers employed by rival manufacturers, including GM, Ford, and Chrysler.[136] When the LS 400 was disassembled for engineering analysis, Cadillac engineers concluded that the vehicle could not be built using existing GM methods."

      http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/L...

      --
      I've got better things to do tonight than die.
    12. Re:And.. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      You're whining. Seriously, just quit it.

    13. Re:And.. by coxymla · · Score: 1

      Actually, it being 2003, they were probably development machines for the Xbox 360 which at that time was not known to be PPC based from memory.

    14. Re:And.. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1

      Whoever posted the article here wrote a title to ensure maximum exposure while posting the link.

      Whoever? It's right there at the top of the summary: FrankPoole. And it makes sense because it is doubtful anybody here knows what the Torrey Points Group is, so the connection to Cisco (which people here will recognize) is explicitly pointed out.

      That said, your article is not free of bias. The title "In the Shadows" indicates the negative connotation

      Oh for god sake it maybe gives a "shady" connotation but given that these purchases are being made secretly by proxy means that connotation is pretty valid. Suggesting that creates bias is reading a bit much into it.

      Where the article has some spin (just a bit, nothing like the Slashdot summary) is that Cisco is painted as doing things abnormal in the industry.

      No it isn't.

      A few qualifiers would have made it more objective, but hell I'm not your editor and don't get paid to write.

      Sorry nobody is going to qualify and clarify every single detail for you just because you read too much into what was written to extract meaning that isn't there.

    15. Re:And.. by s.petry · · Score: 1

      Pointed out? No, the summary and title claims that Cisco is the problem. TFA mentions Cisco but the actual topic is a different company dealing with Cisco.

      That someone does not know the company therefor a fake title and summary should be written is absolute bullshit, and you know it.

      --

      -The wise argue that there are few absolutes, the fool argues that there are no probabilities.

    16. Re:And.. by s.petry · · Score: 1

      A bit more I should have covered:I don't know FrankPoole any more than I know CmdrTaco, nor would I know if he is connected with the source article. It's impossible to make that distinction, so save the condescending "we know who submitted the article". Since I don't know the person or connection I gave a few potential reasons for the spin.

      If an article was written about "Bob's Reseller" (fictitious company) selling Redhat Licenses to Debian in a questionable way, and I wrote a Slashdot summary and submitted the article claiming "Debian caught secretly purchasing XXX dollars of Redhat Software for Reverse Engineering!" I would expect to be called out, because it's wrong.

      Yes, that is a direct analogy. Yes, I seriously doubt you would condone the behavior.

      --

      -The wise argue that there are few absolutes, the fool argues that there are no probabilities.

    17. Re:And.. by exomondo · · Score: 1

      Yeah maybe, especially since they did present the early 360 demos on Macs.

    18. Re:And.. by gnupun · · Score: 1

      Dogs lick their balls. What's new?

      It exposes the harsh reality of what could happen without software patents. Cisco could reverse engineer Juniper's software, copy that functionality into their own product, and release that product six to nine months after the release of Juniper's product, without any legal consequences.

    19. Re:And.. by RobWright · · Score: 1
      S. Petry, I appreciate your comments and feedback, but I think there are a few points in the article you may have missed. I hope this clears some of that up.

      That said, your article is not free of bias. The title "In the Shadows" indicates the negative connotation, but I believe it's directed more at Torrey Point. It's hard to write objectively, especially considering Torrey Points actions.

      I'm not sure what your point is here. Torrey Point committed an act that Juniper considered negative enough to de-authorize the company as a certified partner. So there's that. As for Cisco, once again I'll point out the article explicitly states that what Cisco did was 1) not illegal, and 2) not uncommon at all.

      "Cisco is painted as doing things abnormal in the industry. I'd bet dollars to donuts that Juniper buys millions of dollars worth of Cisco products every few years, just like Ericsson buys competitive products, and Alkatel buys competitive products, and Microsoft buys competitive products, etc..."

      Again, I think the article makes clear that the purchasing of competitors' equipment is a common practice in the tech industry. Where things get a little gray is Cisco's procurement of beta or pre-release products. Some folks (like Dr. Abramson in the article and some folks here in the discussion) believe that's still fair game, while others think it's shady. I'm presenting the information, not making a judgment about the actions. And yes, I believe a lot of manufacturers do this, maybe even most. What made this situation unique was the involvement of Juniper's partner of the year betraying the company and giving Cisco access to cutting edge, early stage technology.

      "Most of the time these purchases are not for reverse engineering. These purchases are either for benchmarking or compatibility testing."

      I can tell you that after spending considerable time researching the matter for this article that I absolutely do not believe that to be true. Not a single person I spoke with or received information from, whether directly connected to the Torrey Point-Cisco dealings or knowledgeable about "competitive analysis labs" at other vendors, believes the purpose of those efforts are for benchmarking or compatibility testing. A major manufacturer isn't going to pay a premium to get a hold of its competitors products just to see if they play nice with their own equipment. In fact, Cisco says in the article they buy competitors' products in part to make sure their own IP isn't being used in those products. How do you think they determine that?

    20. Re:And.. by s.petry · · Score: 1

      Apologies for the delayed response, the feedback is appreciated and noticed.

      Again, I agree with most of your article. As I stated, I don't think what Torry Point did was right and since it involved Cisco I don't believe there was much to do for objectivity. The article seems to be very well researched and very well thought out.

      I still don't agree with the point about reverse engineering. I have worked in IT for 30 years at several very large companies including DOD work. (not Cisco or Juniper). I agree with the potential for that to exist, and would even state that it happens from time to time, but it's not the reason for purchasing competing products most of the time.

      That said, it could have been the purpose with Torry Point and Cisco arrangements. I don't have inside knowledge, just knowledge of the industry and practices.

      Thanks again for the feedback, you have my utmost respect and appreciation.

      --

      -The wise argue that there are few absolutes, the fool argues that there are no probabilities.

  2. Reseller? by Greg666NYC · · Score: 2, Funny

    Perhaps they resell the products.

    1. Get Juniper routers
    2. Put custom firmware with NSA backdoor
    3. ?
    4. Profit

    1. Re:Reseller? by Shakrai · · Score: 2

      New Slashdot comment SOP:

      1. Read /. story about any topic, doesn't have to be relevant to the NSA.
      2. Make joke about the NSA.
      3. +5 upmod, with an average of +3 funny, +1 insightful, and +1 underrated

      --
      I want peace on earth and goodwill toward man.
      We are the United States Government! We don't do that sort of thing.
  3. Twas Ever Thus by necro81 · · Score: 5, Interesting

    As soon as you start putting something on the market, especially if you are not selling directly to the end customer (i.e., through a distributor or VAR), you have to assume that your competitors are going to get ahold of your products. Expect them to be reverse engineered. Trade Secrets do not exist once it's out in the wild.

    Frankly, I'd be surprised if Cisco didn't have this stuff. I would also be surprised if Juniper didn't have Cisco products.

    1. Re:Twas Ever Thus by Ken+D · · Score: 4, Insightful

      This is not news, it was SOP back in the 90's to get your hands on the competitors' new products and figure out how to sell against them, i.e. figure out their weaknesses.

    2. Re:Twas Ever Thus by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1

      What about pre-release/beta products that aren't commercially available and haven't started shipping yet?

    3. Re:Twas Ever Thus by jeffmeden · · Score: 2

      What about pre-release/beta products that aren't commercially available and haven't started shipping yet?

      Even better! Really if that's true then the VAR was clearly given too much trust in who it decides to sell pre-release products to. They should go to established customers with a good history of cooperation, not just anyone who asks. All I can say about this story is "and I bet Juniper is doing the same thing".

    4. Re:Twas Ever Thus by Em+Adespoton · · Score: 3, Insightful

      What about pre-release/beta products that aren't commercially available and haven't started shipping yet?

      Even better! Really if that's true then the VAR was clearly given too much trust in who it decides to sell pre-release products to. They should go to established customers with a good history of cooperation, not just anyone who asks. All I can say about this story is "and I bet Juniper is doing the same thing".

      I'd guess that Cisco is an established customer with a good history of cooperation -- they're definitely not just "anyone who asks."

      I'd also guess that the VAR resells Cisco as well as Juniper, and probably supplies Juniper with Cisco's kit as well.

    5. Re:Twas Ever Thus by decsnake · · Score: 2

      Indeed. Back in the '80s when I worked for a Corporation that made Digital Equipment, we had an group that purchased our competitors equipment, evaluated it against our products in the same categories, and published a document called the Competitive Handbook. Outside of our financial information, the Competitive Handbook was one of our most closely protected documents.

    6. Re:Twas Ever Thus by MightyMartian · · Score: 4, Insightful

      I can't believe Juniper just handed over their VARs beta products without some sort of an NDA. That just seems utterly bizarre and inept.

      --
      The world's burning. Moped Jesus spotted on I50. Details at 11.
    7. Re:Twas Ever Thus by gnick · · Score: 1

      I'd also guess that the VAR resells Cisco as well as Juniper, and probably supplies Juniper with Cisco's kit as well.

      Which to me seems reasonable. It's not like one or the other is going to run to the patent office and declare that they'd like to patent a new implementation they've developed, but refuse to disclose what it is or how it works.

      When two companies are in similar lines, everybody generally comes out ahead when one knows what the other is up to.

      --
      He's getting rather old, but he's a good mouse.
    8. Re:Twas Ever Thus by BitZtream · · Score: 1

      Its been SOP for thousands of years.

      --
      Persistent Volume manager for Kubernetes - https://github.com/dwimsey/openshift-pvmanager
    9. Re:Twas Ever Thus by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Yes, purchasing the competition's products is SOP in the tech industry and perhaps most industries. But after reading the story, it seems the article focuses more on how Juniper's best reseller partner was going behind Juniper's back and selling equipment to Cisco, and making quite a bit a money of it. And it wasn't just new products but stuff that hadn't even been launched yet. Again it's not illegal, even for the pre-release stuff -- the article even states that -- but it speaks to just how big this practice is, and how far it's being taken.

    10. Re:Twas Ever Thus by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1

      You know, you don't have to guess about that stuff -- it's in the article. The VAR was Juniper's top partner and did around 85 percent of its biz with them, and had no official ties to Cisco. The owners basically created shell companies, and they used their influence as a top Juniper partner to get the latest stuff at steep discounts and then turned around and sold it to Cisco, sometimes before the products were out of beta or closed testing.

    11. Re:Twas Ever Thus by the_B0fh · · Score: 1

      It's the beta, not-for-sale-yet products that Cisco got their hands on that is the problem.

    12. Re:Twas Ever Thus by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Dear readers:
      I'm a spokesman for Huawei, and to be perfectly diplomatic, this is fucking BULL.
      Here at Huawei, we have the world exclusive privilege of reverse engineering competitor's products.
      Rest assured, our valued customers, that we will be taking Cisco to all adjudicating bodies including but not limited to the WTO, IMF, BBB, yo mama...
      Thanks you again for choosing Huawei products.

    13. Re:Twas Ever Thus by kenh · · Score: 1

      If they are selling items, doesn't that make them "released"?

      --
      Ken
    14. Re:Twas Ever Thus by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      I can't believe Juniper just handed over their VARs beta products without some sort of an NDA. That just seems utterly bizarre and inept.

      I can't believe Google just handed over their beta products to millions of people without some sort of an NDA. That just seems utterly bizarre and inept.

    15. Re:Twas Ever Thus by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      So handing over beta hardware to your strongest competitor is exactly the same as giving your product some beta software?

    16. Re:Twas Ever Thus by Kalriath · · Score: 1

      No. If you've got a good long-standing relationship with a company, they'll often loan, give or sell you unreleased hardware to get a feel for how it works and (hopefully) place a large order. We have some HP ElitePads at work with "Property of Hewlett-Packard Company", "Please return to HP Dallas, TX" and "Prototype - Not FCC approved" on them just because they wanted us to try them out and maybe get some when they were released.

      --
      For a site about things like basic rights, Slashdot users sure do like to censor "dissent".
    17. Re:Twas Ever Thus by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1

      "I can't believe Juniper just handed over their VARs beta products"

      From my experience with Juniper SRX products, it appears that they ship _only_ beta products.

    18. Re:Twas Ever Thus by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      "While Torrey Point's sales to Cisco and Alcatel-Lucent were not illegal, they did constitute a blatant violation of the solution provider's reseller contract with Juniper, Arista and Alcatel-Lucent. A standard reseller partner agreement expressly states that a partner is prohibited from selling or delivering a vendor's product to any of the vendor's competitors."

  4. And your point is what? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 5, Insightful

    Does anyone really think Juniper doesnt't purchase Cisco gear in a similar fashion? Corporate behavior like this shouldn't come as a surprise to anyone.

    1. Re:And your point is what? by B'Trey · · Score: 1

      Come as a surprise? If they WEREN'T doing this, then the people running the company would be incompetent and should be tossed out the door.

      --

      "The legitimate powers of government extend only to such acts as are injurious to others." Thomas Jefferson.

    2. Re:And your point is what? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1

      I share your lack of enthusiasm for this story. What company doesn't evaluate competitor products?

    3. Re:And your point is what? by Austerity+Empowers · · Score: 4, Insightful

      I've never worked in a place that did not have a competitive analysis lab and that did not have a tear-down process where everyone's products were looked at top to bottom, literally dissected, x-rayed, etc. It's used by everyone from design engineers on future products, to supply chain analysts to lawyers looking for patent infringements.

      It's a good practice, too often companies get dominated by a few senior people with strong personalities who refuse to change. Show them a landscape of products were things are done differently, and with evidence that those things are working BETTER, and you can sometimes unclog some old-fartism. It's rare to see products with idea that hadn't been thought of before, but frequently you see implemented ideas that were shot down in your own org by someone.

      I don't care how prerelease something is, if you put it out there expect that your competitors will see it.

    4. Re:And your point is what? by Charliemopps · · Score: 2

      yea, I've worked for a couple of hardware companies and this was always how they did things and not a secret. They even gave a demo of how they use expensive xray machines to dissect chips and see how they worked. This wasn't just to steal ideas, it was also to find flaw to leak to the press or faults to use in sales pitches. I even found a new device at my local computer store once, mentioned it in a meeting and got asked by an engineer to pick one up and mail it to him in Japan. Some companies even go to lengths to conceal their hardware. I knew of a custom guitar amp manufacturer that embedded their entire board in a special plastic so taking it apart would destroy it. This isn't anything new at all.

    5. Re:And your point is what? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Here's a question from the article (not arguing, honestly curious): why didn't Juniper do anything to prevent Torrey Point from selling their stuff to Cisco? Sounds like they knew what was going on and gave them a slap on the wrist and didn't drop the hammer on them until a couple years later. So should the people running Juniper be tossed for letting this happen? And if I'm a Juniper shareholder, should I be pissed that Juniper knew, for example, that Cisco was getting a peak at QFabric before it was released and didn't do enough to stop it?

    6. Re:And your point is what? by RatherBeAnonymous · · Score: 1

      Or better yet - keep quite and use it to spread disinformation. A little corporate counter-espionage goes a long way.

    7. Re: And your point is what? by Stoutlimb · · Score: 4, Funny

      I bet BlackBerry never had one.

    8. Re:And your point is what? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Assuming one reason for them doing it is compatibility testing, I'd even say this is responsible corporate behavior.

    9. Re: And your point is what? by coxymla · · Score: 1

      RIM never needed one, they knew without even looking that the iPhone was physically impossible and just a trick of some kind.

  5. But didn't their patents protect them? ;D by gurps_npc · · Score: 1, Insightful

    Amazing how current patent law is so useless it can't stop blatant reverse engineering, yet it can stifle so much real innovation.

    --
    excitingthingstodo.blogspot.com
    1. Re:But didn't their patents protect them? ;D by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Amazing how current patent law is so useless it can't stop blatant reverse engineering, yet it can stifle so much real innovation.

      Reverse engineering is not illegal. What you do with the information learned from reverse engineering is what matters.

    2. Re:But didn't their patents protect them? ;D by Ralph+Wiggam · · Score: 5, Insightful

      If it wasn't for legal reverse engineering, most of us would be sitting in front of $2000 IBM PCs.

    3. Re:But didn't their patents protect them? ;D by gurps_npc · · Score: 0
      If the patents work, then reverse engineering is worthless. If they don't, then you absolutely need reverse engineering.

      For this reason, the test of a patent system is are companies willing to reverse engineer. If they are, then the patents don't work. If they don't think it's worthwhile then it is working.

      --
      excitingthingstodo.blogspot.com
    4. Re:But didn't their patents protect them? ;D by sribe · · Score: 2

      If it wasn't for legal reverse engineering, most of us would be sitting in front of $2000 IBM PCs.

      Don't forget the IBM v Phoenix lawsuit. IBM wanted it that way, and thank goodness, they lost.

    5. Re:But didn't their patents protect them? ;D by sinij · · Score: 1

      Our technological progress is held back by patents, outside of rare situations of coming up with a breakthrough idea, the creative process is incremental. You take other people's work, in a field established by other people, apply theoretical principles and models discovered by others, and then you incrementally improve the idea.

      Why should there be protection for such incremental improvements when it demonstrably holds entire process of incremental progress back? Well, for one there should be some incentive to innovate. So we as society accept slower rate of innovation for larger volume of innovation, ending up with more.

      Imagine society where "reverse engineering" is impractical/infeasible. You will have even more people attempting to innovate, because end result would be more valuable, but a lot of this work will be duplicate. Reverse engineering is allowed because it reduces the duplication, and that offsets marginal decrease to innovation. This is part of optimal solution that encourages innovation yet keeps down the duplication.

    6. Re:But didn't their patents protect them? ;D by alen · · Score: 1

      the point of patent law is to tell the world exactly how your idea works so someone can reverse engineer it with some improvements

    7. Re:But didn't their patents protect them? ;D by _anomaly_ · · Score: 1

      So, you're watching Halt and Catch Fire too? ;-)

      --
      "I have no special gift, I am only passionately curious." - Albert Einstein
    8. Re:But didn't their patents protect them? ;D by Ralph+Wiggam · · Score: 1

      No. That's a pretty famous story. Is the show good?

    9. Re:But didn't their patents protect them? ;D by _anomaly_ · · Score: 1

      Yeah, true. The show's OK so far. Has more potential to interest me than most of the other stuff on TV these days.

      --
      "I have no special gift, I am only passionately curious." - Albert Einstein
    10. Re:But didn't their patents protect them? ;D by mythosaz · · Score: 1

      Only 1.1M watched the premiere, so despite it being "pretty good," I wouldn't get too attached to it. [Turn (their revolutionary war spy show) got about twice that many...]

      For geeks, there's some fairly cool retro-tech, but it's all only loosely based on parallel events, so it lacks some of the interest a more historically grounded show might have.

    11. Re:But didn't their patents protect them? ;D by NoNonAlphaCharsHere · · Score: 1

      ...it lacks some of the interest a more historically grounded show might have.

      Like Mad Men, for example? I think HCF is starting out just fine. I'm curious to see where they take it.

    12. Re:But didn't their patents protect them? ;D by richy+freeway · · Score: 1

      It's utter drivel. The first episode at least showed a little promise, but whatever there was they swiftly destroyed in episode two.

    13. Re:But didn't their patents protect them? ;D by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Except that there are un-patented trade secrets in some devices, that are no patented because they would rather try to keep them actually secret. Other times, even if it is patented, it is nice to know what the competitor is actually using, patented or not. Even if they are using a patented design, there are variations and design decisions that could be applied to other things not under the patent, or it could be a good to see an actual real world test of an implementation of the patent. And plenty of stuff still gets used that is too old or generic to be patented.

    14. Re:But didn't their patents protect them? ;D by stdarg · · Score: 1

      It is pretty bad indeed. And I've watched "Silicon Valley" already so I can't help but think of its take-downs of the self-important, pompous, "change the world" mentality every time the sales guy talks on HCF.

    15. Re:But didn't their patents protect them? ;D by westlake · · Score: 1

      If it wasn't for legal reverse engineering, most of us would be sitting in front of $2000 IBM PCs.

      MS-DOS sold for $50 retail list.

      There were name-branded and commercially viable MS-DOS PCs on the market before the cloning of the IBM PC BIOS. The same with software.

      CP/M was the dominant business-oriented OS in the eight bit world and a 16 bit CP/M clone was a natural choice for IBM. But Microsoft had an entrant in the 16 bit UNIX sweepstakes and its willingness to sell an OS at mass market prices to all comers was something new.

    16. Re:But didn't their patents protect them? ;D by richy+freeway · · Score: 1

      I'm enjoying Silicon Valley. It might have holes in it's portrayal of IT and technology, but at least it's got plenty of laughs and a story that doesn't make me want to slit my wrists (Halt and Catch Fire).

    17. Re:But didn't their patents protect them? ;D by citizenr · · Score: 1

      What you really want to watch is this documentary: THE COMPAQ STORY - 1984 to 1988
      https://www.youtube.com/watch?...

      https://www.youtube.com/watch?...

      https://www.youtube.com/watch?...

      --
      Who logs in to gdm? Not I, said the duck.
  6. One law for corporations another for you by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    I thougt reverse engineering this way was against the law in America?

    1. Re:One law for corporations another for you by Ralph+Wiggam · · Score: 1

      You can't copy someone else's exact implementation and sell it as your own. You can reverse engineer.

  7. common practice by guarants · · Score: 1

    This happens all the time amongst competitors. It doesn't mean they want to reverse engineer or violate patents; it is usually so you can educate yourself as to what your competitors are up to and make sure that you're staying competitive.

    1. Re:common practice by AMDinator · · Score: 1

      I can vouch for this.

    2. Re:common practice by jeffmeden · · Score: 1

      This happens all the time amongst competitors. It doesn't mean they want to reverse engineer or violate patents; it is usually so you can educate yourself as to what your competitors are up to and make sure that you're staying competitive.

      Rather, aside from maintaining competitive positioning, they are probably looking for anything novel that hasn't been patented yet, so they can copy it (and perhaps patent it themselves). Not every invention is patented or even patent worthy but it still could be valuable.

  8. This just in - the water is wet! by sinij · · Score: 1

    This is not at all surprising (or illegal). Almost any industry manufacturing any kind of wiget, be it a router, a car, or an orbital booster will purchase and examine their competition.

    This would be a story only if they acquired these illegally, for example by breaking and entering the competitor's research lab.

    1. Re:This just in - the water is wet! by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Yup. And of course, when the press got wind of the story, they would add the obligatory -gate suffix.

    2. Re:This just in - the water is wet! by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      This is not at all surprising (or illegal). Almost any industry manufacturing any kind of wiget, be it a router, a car, or an orbital booster will purchase and examine their competition. This would be a story only if they acquired these illegally, for example by breaking and entering the competitor's research lab.

      Or, as I saw happen back in the 90s, send one or more of your guys to get a job at the competitor, then quit after you've obtained all their designs.

    3. Re:This just in - the water is wet! by gnupun · · Score: 1

      This is not at all surprising (or illegal)

      Is it legal? Most software has a "don't reverse engineer our software" in the EULA.

  9. Re:New Jersey frosty by asmkm22 · · Score: 0

    Nope.

  10. Re:New Jersey frosty by IntrepidDreams · · Score: 3

    I actually read it as "Crisco Spending Millions of Dollars Secretly Purchasing New Juniper Products" and was confused as to why a food oil brand was expanding into products using the coniferous plant Juniper.

  11. Many industries standard: buy competing products. by Moskit · · Score: 1

    Company in any area would be pretty silly if they don't buy and check how competitors' equipment works. Car analogy actually works here there - people selling Abcd cars would drive Bghj and Celkj cars, so they can better compare them and advise customers of faults in others.

    Even TFA says:
    purchasing a competitor's products for testing and reverse engineering is not only a common and accepted practice, but "an important component of entrepreneurial capitalism" in the IT industry. "This is part of what makes markets work," he said. "You're supposed to know how your competitor's products work and incorporate as much as you can to make the next generation of your product better."

    Regarding intelectual property Cisco seems far more advanced on hardware level, so obtaining gear from competitor is not really going to move things forward. Article also does not mention (unless I missed it) obtaining equipment which is in developement.
    The best way for commercial spying is information exchanged by people - engineers from all those networking Silicon Valley companies know each other, they gossip, they betray secrets. This is how most of information leaks through, straight from the sources, not via reverse-engineering.

    You can be also completely sure that Juniper bought Cisco equipment for the same purposes, and so did other companies. Even TFA mentions Alcatel-Lucent buying Cisco. It was an all-out activity.

  12. Re:New Jersey frosty by rogoshen1 · · Score: 2

    Gin infused pies, of course.

  13. Re:Many industries standard: buy competing product by jones_supa · · Score: 2

    Car analogy actually works here there - people selling Abcd cars would drive Bghj and Celkj cars

    That Celkj sounds like some new East European vehicle brand.

  14. Juniper is better by BitcoinBenny · · Score: 1

    It might just have something to do with the fact that the Juniper products are with few exceptions a million times better. I avoid almost all of the CIsco gear like the plague.

    1. Re:Juniper is better by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Juniper products are with few exceptions a million times better

      Be more specific.

    2. Re:Juniper is better by jklovanc · · Score: 0

      Juniper products are with few exceptions a million times better.

      Exaggerate much?

    3. Re:Juniper is better by camperdave · · Score: 4, Funny

      Juniper products are with few exceptions a million times better

      Be more specific.

      Okay... 1,070,204.982 times better - with a few exceptions.

      --
      When our name is on the back of your car, we're behind you all the way!
    4. Re:Juniper is better by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      100.000 times better + 200.000 times better + 300.000 times better + 400.000 times better

    5. Re:Juniper is better by Shatrat · · Score: 1

      Here's a specific example. In a Cisco router you can install a Cisco SFP. In a Juniper router you can install a Juniper SFP, a Finisar SFP, a Fujitsu SFP et cetera. As long as it's standards compliant it works. The Cisco devices will read the manufacturer from the EEPROM on the pluggable, and shut down the port if it's not theirs.

      --
      09 F9 11 02 9D 74 E3 5B D8 41 56 C5 63 56 88 C0
    6. Re:Juniper is better by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1

      No they dont they just report that its a non Cisco SFP. You can tell the switch to ignore teh fact that its a non Cisco SFP.

        service unsupported-transceiver
      no errdisable detect cause gbic-invalid

      will bring the port back up.
      There are equivalent commands on most Cisco switches, probably all.

    7. Re:Juniper is better by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      TIL - Thanks

    8. Re:Juniper is better by BitcoinBenny · · Score: 1

      Actually no, I meant it. Most of the Cisco products are a steaming pile.

    9. Re:Juniper is better by acvolt · · Score: 2

      On some Cisco equipment you can tell it to ignore the non Cisco SFP's. In the Cisco Transport gear and large routers like the ASR9k you cannot use non Cisco SFP's. In fact Cisco transport gear won't use Cisco SFP's sold as router sfp's.

    10. Re:Juniper is better by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      I cannot really compare Juniper to Cisco. Even though I've been around Cisco gear for years I'm not a networking guy.

      A friend of mine used Juniper gear for years and loved the stuff. Well I had a chance to look at a small Juniper switch and the documentation that came with it. It was a quick once-over only you understand! My first impressions were strongly favourable though. Everything looked tight and professional. For a small SOHO type switch the documentation was first-rate.

      Of course Cisco gives the same impressions too.

  15. I will say this... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    as an IT in the business for three decades now, Juniper does make better gear. Yes, this is subjective, but their HW and SW are just nicer all around.

  16. Re:New Jersey frosty by FlopEJoe · · Score: 1

    I saw it as "Jupiter" products and thought it was a rant on Buy (earth) American products first.

  17. Re:Many industries standard: buy competing product by David_Hart · · Score: 1

    Regarding intelectual property Cisco seems far more advanced on hardware level, so obtaining gear from competitor is not really going to move things forward. Article also does not mention (unless I missed it) obtaining equipment which is in developement.
    The best way for commercial spying is information exchanged by people - engineers from all those networking Silicon Valley companies know each other, they gossip, they betray secrets. This is how most of information leaks through, straight from the sources, not via reverse-engineering.

    You can be also completely sure that Juniper bought Cisco equipment for the same purposes, and so did other companies. Even TFA mentions Alcatel-Lucent buying Cisco. It was an all-out activity.

    Actually, Cisco used to be a front runner with more advanced network products. However, more and more network vendors, such as Juniper and Aruba, have caught up and passed Cisco. For example, while Juniper routers aren't as well known in the enterprise space, they are used heavily in the ISP and cloud provider space.

    The one area where Cisco still has an edge is the ability to centralize management of all of their devices. Practically every network management solution provider supports Cisco. This will change as Juniper becomes more popular in the Enterprise, but it just isn't there yet.

    The article did mention Cisco buying Beta gear. This is usually the last stage before release. It must have been a Beta unit to show customers for the VAR to be able to get their hands on it.

  18. This isn't really news by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    The only thing notable about this is that the partner did it against the wishes of Juniper.

    I work for a very large storage vendor, and we buy the other very large vendor's equipment. And they buy ours. Both circumstances are bought (legally) through partners.

  19. GoDaddy buys hosting accounts, too. by mr_mischief · · Score: 2

    Various web hosting providers including GoDaddy have been known to buy hosting accounts at competitors. This is often done with a company credit card under the name of a company executive or division manager. They do it to see things like how much traffic a common application like WordPress or ZenCart can take on various price points for hosting at the competition. They may also check out customizations to the control panel software and choose which features they may want to implement for their customers, too. This is often not even frowned upon by the target company. It's an endorsement that you're of interest to the competition for one thing.

    Figuring out how your performance compares to the competition is quite different from being able to improve your own performance without killing your margin. That said, with something as easily monitored as a server account any attempts to poke around under the hood too much are easier to stop than in hardware like Juniper/Cisco.

  20. Interoperability by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    I should think that a _networking_ company is required to have competing products for interoperability testing and debugging.

  21. What would be really surprising... by QuietLagoon · · Score: 1
    ... would be a CRN investigative report that cisco does not purchase competitors' products for analysis.

    .

  22. Fortunately... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    ...the SlashDot community will keep this uner wraps.

  23. but they complaint others doing the same thing to by hackingbear · · Score: 1

    Huawei was accused of pretty much the same thing by the US companies/gov't. Looks like not a Chinese exclusive, but it is OK that we do this.

  24. normal by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    This is part of a normal Competitive Intelligence framework.

    This happens in virtually all domains where an engineered product is involved. The extent, degree of it being publicized, and degree of funding varies by industry, geopolitical location, and other factors.

  25. What's the news here? by sirwired · · Score: 1

    News Flash! Company legally buys competitor's gear on the open market!

    What, precisely, is the story here?

  26. All companies by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    I have been in Enterasys, Cisco, Extreme, Juniper labs (in their respective organizations). All of them have everyone elses equipment. They check from interoperability and also how the other bands perform. This is big especially in the carrier routing space.

  27. story is how they were getting early access... by Ionized · · Score: 1

    story is that one of juniper's major partners was underhandedly selling prerelease, demo, & beta products to cisco. while legal, it's shady as fuck, and is almost certainly something that would have pissed juniper off to the point of severing ties with the vendor.

  28. Re:Many industries standard: buy competing product by Moskit · · Score: 1

    Thanks, missed the beta reference on first read.

    Cisco is still more advanced on hardware front, but they lag a lot on software. Standards implementation (even if created by Cisco) in particular, although given how many products they have to cover partially explains those problems.

    Juniper usually did "cheap but good enough" trick to gain a lot of ground. Cisco's products were often better engineered, but customers did not care for those better features, or did not understand them, which resulted in Juniper gaining a lot of market share. They have not passed Cisco though (yet) - in 2014 they have about 17% in edge (19% Cisco) and 28% in core routers (62% Cisco).

    Markets are in transition anyway (buzzword compliancy), so next 2-3 years will show who got it right. Regardless of checking out competitors' products.

  29. Re:Many industries standard: buy competing product by Moskit · · Score: 1

    Sounds Turkish or Albanian to me.
    I guess car companies will run out of fancy names soon, and people will drive Ford Celkj or Fiat Celkj ;-)

  30. sidestepping the obvious by swschrad · · Score: 1

    I'm sure you had plenty of VAX to clean the office each night, too.

    --
    if this is supposed to be a new economy, how come they still want my old fashioned money?
  31. Re:Many industries standard: buy competing product by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Can you elaborate on the repeated claims that Cisco has better hardware?

    The argument of custom vs merchant silicon has been going on a while, but I feel as though most people agree that the competitive advantages of custom silicon has dramatically decreased with modern commodity chip fab. I am sure they have some neat asics that perform specific proprietary tasks well, but I don't know if I would say that it makes them better. I am more for open standards.

  32. This problem is as old as manufacturing by kriston · · Score: 1

    This problem is as old as manufacturing.
    Do we really not know or fail to remember that this is how the entire Japanese electronics and automotive industries were spawned? This is how the electronic industry of Korea came about, and one third of the entire Soviet Union's compute capacity from 1950 to 1990. Not to mention the entire DECSYSTEM-20 compatibles market and all the AMD, Cyrix, IBM, NexGen, WinChip, RISE, etc. x86-compatibles market.

    I'm sure someone has already or will soon point out how this is newsworthy.

    --

    Kriston

  33. Re:but they complaint others doing the same thing by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    It's OK that American companies do this, because the Chinese do it so you're not as bad as that might make you seem.

  34. That's what patents are for! by penguinoid · · Score: 1

    In theory, your patent is supposed to mean that reverse-engineering for technology is both unnecessary and nearly worthless. You'd still expect some reverse engineering to find the specs of a product, either for marketing, making a competitive product, or interoperability.

    --
    Don't waste your vote! Vote for whoever you want, unless you live in a swing state it won't matter anyways
  35. why is this a story? by bloodhawk · · Score: 1

    Why is this a story? this is common practise for pretty much all industries, especially IT based ones. Most companies don't even try to hide the fact, nothing wrong with the practise, they would be fools if they were not constantly checking what the competition does.

  36. China by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Does this mean Cisco will stop crying about China stealing all their secrets now?

  37. Why is this a story? Everyone has always done it. by Mark+Atwood · · Score: 1

    I've worked for two different hardware manufactures in the past, one of which made boxes that go into data centers, and one that made boxes that go into living rooms. OF COURSE we bought our competitor's products via a "cut out" company, and then took them to the teardown and reverse engineering lab. Everyone does it. Everyone has always done it. Everyone will always do it. It is specifically permitted in intellectual property law, and it's also well understood in case law, such that everyone knows that trying to enforce against it via "user license agreements" will fail in court.

  38. If some guy reverses a Playstation by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    or some other DRM stuff its illegal, but this is okay? Srsly?