Re: Microsoft's OS competitors

From: Timothy Arnold-Moore <tja[_at_]mds.rmit.edu.au>
Date: Tue, 29 Apr 97 11:30:22 +1000

Brad Slutsky <bslutsky[_at_]atlanta.com> writes:
>
> Reverse engineering is not legal if you agree in a contract that, in
> exchange for access to the materials, you will not reverse engineer them.
> No comment on the enforceability of that contract, which is an entirely
> different debate. Remember, though, that a jury returned a $13 million
> or so verdict against Stac on this issue. That probably has some
> deterrent effect.

So do it in Europe where there is now explicit protection for reverse engineering to discover interfaces regardless of the licence (where much of the Linux work is being done).

I think the real reason has been discussed earlier and that is that even if one could be reasonably sure of eventual success in the courts, MS would tie you up in litigation for long enough to make your product obsolete. Since success is not guaranteed it is simply too big a punt.

The Linux consortium has the best opportunity at success for many reasons:

Tim Arnold-Moore, LL.B. (Melb)        | Multimedia Database Systems, RMIT  |
tja[_at_]mds.rmit.edu.au  B.Sc.(Hons Melb) | 723 Swanston St    -----------------
Tel: +61 3 9282 2487   Fax: ..2490    | Carlton 3053       |  simul iustus 
    http://www.mds.rmit.edu.au/People/Tja/tja.html         |   et peccator 
Received on Tue Apr 29 1997 - 01:35:36 GMT

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.2.0 : Mon Mar 26 2007 - 00:35:25 GMT