software ethics

[Steven Bellovin]

It would help if people were a bit more careful about using phrases like
"trade secret".  I'm sure a lawyer can do better, but let me try to define
some relevant terms:

	trade secret -- some knowledge that is truly kept secret by the
		owner, for commercial gain.  An example is the formula
		for Coca Cola(R).  It is *legal* to attempt to deduce
		a trade secret by reverse engineering, and to use this
		knowledge commercially.  Thus, if I buy a computer and
		find all the secret ROM entry points by disassembling
		a readout, I can write programs to use them.  I can also
		use the algorithms contained therein if they are not
		otherwise protected.

	patent -- a limited-term right to use an original invention, in
		exchange for publication of the patent.  Because of the
		limited duration, and because essential information must
		be disclosed, many companies choose not to patent some
		items -- again, Coca Cola is a good example.  (Btw, the
		patent on Valium expired last week....)

	copyright -- a very general sort of protection, applicable to a
		wide class of works, including computer programs and (now)
		ROM masks.  Copyright vests in the creator of a work by
		virtue of the act of creation; however, an appropriate
		notice must be affixed at time of publication or the work
		reverts to the public domain.  Copyrighted works need
		not be published to retain their protection; I've even seen
		some programs with explicit notices describing the file
		as an unpublished, copyrighted work.  If I write a program
		on my home computer, and you break in and steal it, I can
		sue you for copyright infringement.  Derivative works are
		also protected.  That is, if you write a book, no one can
		make a movie of that book withou your consent.  Copyrights
		expire, too, but after a much longer period of time -- I
		believe that current (U.S.) law specifies the life of the
		author plus 50 years.  Additionally, copyrights can be
		renewed under certain conditions.

	contract protection -- in general, the owner of any object can convey,
		under any sorts of terms, more or less limited rights to use
		that object.  Most software falls in this category, combined
		with copyright protection to establish ownership.  That is,
		AT&T Technologies (formerly known as Wester Electric) *owns*
		the set of programs we know as UNIX.  In return for some
		consideration (i.e., large quantities of bucks), they'll
		sign a contract giving you certain specified rights to use
		their software.

Now -- algorithms are in general not eligible for any of these forms of
protection except trade secret.  (I assume that one can license a trade
secret, but I'm not certain of that.)  I just don't know what class a
protocol falls in.  If protocols are in the same category as algorithms,
then Lauren could *probably* look at some (copyrighted, licensed) UNIX code
to understand it, then sit down and write his own version.  (Note:  before
you do this, please remember again that I'm *not* a lawyer.)  On the other
hand, he might have to prove to some big hairy lawyer that his code is not
derivative from the protected code.  That can make for expensive lawsuits,
and AT&T has lots of money and lots of lawyers...  And of course, whatever
source license he's working under might contain some restrictive covenants
that would bar such use -- remember that the UNIX source code is someone's
property, and you can only use it with their permission.  I don't know what
UNIX licenses say today; I do know that 5 years ago, an educational license
prohibited using UNIX source code in the classroom.

You don't like this, you don't think it's right?  Well, what do you do about
other property laws you don't think are right?  It's really the same thing;
the only question at issue here is what is the definition of property.  If
you believe in the concept of private property (and if you don't, please reply
to net.politics....), I suggest that you lobby to have your own definitions
accepted instead by Congress.  Personally, I do accept the concept of
intangible property, including intellectual property; given that, I admire
Lauren for declining to steal someone else's property.


		--Steve Bellovin
		ulysses!smb

P.S.  The opinions expressed herein are *mine* and mine alone, and do not
necessarily represent the opinions of AT&T Bell Laboratories, its lawyers,
etc.  And I decline to accept any responsibility for any actions anyone takes
based on my understanding of the law.