[userbinator]

Sure, USA citizens are not allowed to reverse engineer

...yes we are? After all, that's how the whole IBM PC-compatible industry started.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Phoenix_Technologies#Cloning_t...

AFAIK the later Thinkpads including this one uses a Phoenix BIOS, so it's amusing to see the circularity of how things turned out; and continuing on that path, Phoenix sold its BIOS business to Lenovo a little earlier this year.

[dlcarrier]

Yeah, it's pretty cut and dry. Constitutionally, only the federal government is allowed to regulate intellectual property, so re-implementing anything that isn't protected by a trademark, copyright, or patent is fair game, and trademarks don't cover design, copyright only covers media, and patents expire in 20 tears.

Even the clean-room isolation that Phoenix went through isn't legally required, it just makes nuisance lawsuits more difficult. BSD prevailed over UNIX System Laboratories, in their reimplementation of Unix, despite having directly worked with the source code.

[keithwinstein]

> Constitutionally, only the federal government is allowed to regulate intellectual property

It turns out that's not exactly the case! See, e.g., Goldstein v. California, 412 U.S. 546 (1973). Before 1978, state (often common law) copyright used to cover a lot of pre-publication works, and until 2018 (when the federal law was amended) state copyright law covered pre-1972 sound recordings, and state copyright still covers obscure things like post-mortem moral rights in visual art or rights to "unfixed" works. See 1 Nimmer on Copyright §§ A.02 & 2.02. Other forms of intellectual property (trade secrets, rights of publicity) remain mostly creatures of state law, and some states also have trademark systems.

[Krutonium]

As with many things, this is a case of "it depends" - How you do it and for what reason, primarily. If you're reverse engineering code that's part of a DRM scheme for example, that's explicitly not allowed.

Coreboot is debatable for this, it's fine in the sense that nobody is going to come after you for it, but legally you're not doing a clean room implementation, you're looking at the original and creating a new functional replacement, which is fundamentally different to the Phoenix BIOS clone, and not in a good way.

But as I said, nobody is going to come after you for it so...

[ivas]

> but legally you're not doing a clean room implementation, you're looking at the original and creating a new functional replacement

Interesting legal question: if Claude reverse engineers the original and writes a spec, and ChatGPT implements the spec without seeing the original, is that a clean-room implementation? Asking for a friend with a trillion parameters

[Krutonium]

Depends? Honestly if you just cleaned Claude's memory (or had 2 distinct instances that can't communicate other than the spec), claude could do both.

But honestly this is going to have to be tested in court. Also, IANAL.