13.03.2013 Views

Hacking the Xbox

Hacking the Xbox

Hacking the Xbox

SHOW MORE
SHOW LESS

You also want an ePaper? Increase the reach of your titles

YUMPU automatically turns print PDFs into web optimized ePapers that Google loves.

180<br />

<strong>Hacking</strong> <strong>the</strong> <strong>Xbox</strong>: An Introduction to Reverse Engineering<br />

The above passage indicates that intellectual property law has long been<br />

concerned about limiting <strong>the</strong> potential monopoly power conferred by<br />

copyright and patent law. For instance, <strong>the</strong> first-sale doctrine prevents patent<br />

and copyright owners from controlling <strong>the</strong> market once patented products<br />

or copies of copyrighted works are sold.<br />

Also, copyright law has long been interpreted by courts and crafted by<br />

Congress to preserve a balance with freedom of speech. Doctrines like <strong>the</strong><br />

idea/expression dichotomy, <strong>the</strong> fair use doctrine, and copyright’s limited<br />

term are generally viewed as reducing <strong>the</strong> potential conflict between copyright<br />

and freedom of expression. 18<br />

Interestingly, concern about monopolies is historically linked to <strong>the</strong> concern<br />

for free speech. English copyright law had long functioned as a kind of<br />

state-sponsored cartel; in return for private monopolies over writings, <strong>the</strong><br />

publishers agreed to act as policemen of <strong>the</strong> press in <strong>the</strong> service of government<br />

censorship — in particular, <strong>the</strong> Bible and o<strong>the</strong>r religious works. 19<br />

Similarly, copyright law’s idea-expression dichotomy ensures that<br />

uncopyrightable facts and ideas and unpatentable functional principles<br />

remain in <strong>the</strong> public domain for future creators to build on.<br />

The Traditional View of Reverse<br />

Engineering<br />

Historically, reverse engineering has always been a lawful way to gain<br />

information embodied in mass-marketed products. For many technology<br />

firms, reverse-engineering competitors’ products to study <strong>the</strong>ir innovations<br />

is a standard practice. Indeed, U.S. courts have also treated reverse engineering<br />

as an important factor in maintaining balance in intellectual property law,<br />

and <strong>the</strong> Supreme Court has called reverse engineering “an essential part of<br />

innovation.”<br />

The law recognizes three main purposes of legitimate reverse engineering.<br />

Competitive reverse-engineering is intended to create a direct substitute.<br />

Compatibility or interoperability reverse-engineering is aimed at figuring out<br />

how to make a product that works with <strong>the</strong> reverse-engineered product.<br />

And of course, researchers often reverse-engineer products in order to gain<br />

knowledge with no commercial purpose.<br />

Trade Secrecy and “Improper Means”<br />

In general, a trade secret is misappropriated only if a person or firm<br />

misuses or discloses <strong>the</strong> secret in breach of an agreement or confidential<br />

relationship, engages in o<strong>the</strong>r wrongful conduct (e.g., bribery, coercion,<br />

18 See generally Neil Weinstock Netanel, Locating Copyright<br />

Within <strong>the</strong> First Amendment Skein, 54 Stan. L. Rev. 1 (2001).<br />

19 See generally L. Ray Patterson, Free Speech, Copyright, and<br />

Fair Use, 40 Vand. L. Rev. 1 (1987).

Hooray! Your file is uploaded and ready to be published.

Saved successfully!

Ooh no, something went wrong!