Law.com Subscribers SAVE 30%
Call 855-808-4530 or email [email protected] to receive your discount on a new subscription.
Enforcing Reverse Engineering Prohibitions in Shrink- and Click-wrap Licenses: A Report on Bowers v. Baystate Technologies, Inc.
The practice of “reverse engineering,” whereby one company obtains the product of a competitor and works backwards “to divine the process which aided in its development or manufacture,” has long been accepted as a legitimate (and sometimes wholly necessary) practice in the computer software marketplace. Kewanee Oil Co. v Bicron Corp., 416 U.S. 470, 476 (1974). It also has been upheld by Courts as a form of “fair use,” whereby competitors may make copies of one another's source or object code for purposes of study and analysis without incurring liability for copyright infringement. See, eg, Sony Computer Entertainment Inc. v. Connectix Corp., 203 F.3d 596 (9th Cir. 2000); Sega Enterprises Ltd. v. Accolade, Inc., 977 F.2d 510 (9th Cir. 1992) (amended opinion); Atari Games Corp. v. Nintendo, 975 F.2d 832 (Fed. Cir. 1992).
Proponents of reverse engineering argue that it results in the public obtaining less expensive (and often higher quality) products. The practice is reviled, however, by many prominent software companies that view it as impairing their ability to protect intellectual property that often has been developed at great expense.
Not surprisingly, therefore, it has become common for software and hardware vendors to attempt to limit reverse engineering through the use of prohibitions contained within so-called “shrink-wrap” and “click-wrap” license agreements. Such licenses typically are unilaterally imposed upon consumers as a result of their opening the plastic wrapping on the outside of floppy disks, or by their clicking on the words “I agree” during Internet transactions. By accepting the terms of the license in this fashion, the purchasers also necessarily agree that they will not attempt to determine the functionality or underlying nature of the software through otherwise lawful practices, such as reverse engineering. If they ignore this prohibition, the purchasers presumably breach the contract and could be held liable for damages.
This premium content is locked for Entertainment Law & Finance subscribers only
ENJOY UNLIMITED ACCESS TO THE SINGLE SOURCE OF OBJECTIVE LEGAL ANALYSIS, PRACTICAL INSIGHTS, AND NEWS IN ENTERTAINMENT LAW.
- Stay current on the latest information, rulings, regulations, and trends
- Includes practical, must-have information on copyrights, royalties, AI, and more
- Tap into expert guidance from top entertainment lawyers and experts
Already a have an account? Sign In Now Log In Now
For enterprise-wide or corporate acess, please contact Customer Service at [email protected] or 877-256-2473
Major Differences In UK, U.S. Copyright Laws
This article highlights how copyright law in the United Kingdom differs from U.S. copyright law, and points out differences that may be crucial to entertainment and media businesses familiar with U.S law that are interested in operating in the United Kingdom or under UK law. The article also briefly addresses contrasts in UK and U.S. trademark law.
Strategy vs. Tactics: Two Sides of a Difficult Coin
With each successive large-scale cyber attack, it is slowly becoming clear that ransomware attacks are targeting the critical infrastructure of the most powerful country on the planet. Understanding the strategy, and tactics of our opponents, as well as the strategy and the tactics we implement as a response are vital to victory.
The Article 8 Opt In
The Article 8 opt-in election adds an additional layer of complexity to the already labyrinthine rules governing perfection of security interests under the UCC. A lender that is unaware of the nuances created by the opt in (may find its security interest vulnerable to being primed by another party that has taken steps to perfect in a superior manner under the circumstances.
Removing Restrictive Covenants In New York
In Rockwell v. Despart, the New York Supreme Court, Third Department, recently revisited a recurring question: When may a landowner seek judicial removal of a covenant restricting use of her land?