[some1else]

Great app! If you want to keep distributing it, you'll have to find a less "Bose-sounding" name. I am not a lawyer, but as far as I can tell: a) they can't prevent you from implementing a reverse-engineered protocol, b) they can take legal action against you for trademark infringement / damages.

[rzzzt]

Re: a), the best thing is to document the protocol, then let someone else (who has not seen the insides of the original application) implement it based on the documentation.

[stavros]

It doesn't sound like the OP has seen the insides of the original application either, sounds like it was just the protocol that was reverse engineered, from the packets.

[codetrotter]

Agree. The name for this is clean room design.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Clean_room_design

[geofft]

In the US at least, clean room reverse engineering is not required (see the "case law" section of the article, which documents two cases where clean-room separation was not maintained and the reverse engineers still prevailed) nor does it necessarily protect you (all the examples in the article predate the DMCA, which puts significant restrictions on reverse-engineering itself, and as the article points out, the clean-room approach is it relevant for patents).

[abcd_f]

If they would want to make OP’s life difficult, they will find a way. Even through the protocol reversing angle.

Most likely there’s a clause in their EULA that prohibits reversing anything related once you start using a product. The only way around it is to show that you never accepted the EULA in the first place. That in itself is difficult, especially since the OP is being open about already using their products.

Not to be a skeptical old fart, but this won’t end well. Especially since it’s a $ software.

[drcross]

>Even through the protocol reversing angle.

This is reverse engineering in the same way that I redraw a map of my drainage pipes when there's a leak in my house. My plumber is not going to sue me and neither will Bose.

[eps]

They won't sue. They will just threaten to do that and the OP will need to decide if he can afford to "engage" with them even if he may technically be in clear. To argue that reversing a protocol is not an issue you'd need to be in front of a judge and it's expensive to get there.