Path: utzoo!utgpu!attcan!uunet!seismo!sundc!pitstop!sun!decwrl!hplabs!hpda!hpcupt1!hpisod1!renglish
From: renglish@hpisod1.HP.COM (Bob English)
Newsgroups: comp.lang.c
Subject: Re: Disassembling was Re: Machine-independent intermediate languages
Message-ID: <10130004@hpisod1.HP.COM>
Date: 3 Nov 88 00:41:08 GMT
References: <7226@ihlpl.ATT.COM>
Organization: Hewlett Packard, Cupertino
Lines: 28

> / gwyn@smoke.BRL.MIL (Doug Gwyn ) / 12:51 pm  Oct 22, 1988 /
> In article <1988Oct21.155329.14161@utzoo.uucp> henry@utzoo.uucp (Henry Spencer) writes:
> -This sort of restriction is very common.  Sun binary licenses include
> -a similar clause.
> So does Apple's.  What I wonder is, in the absence of a signed license
> agreement, is any of that enforceable?

I suspect, though as usual I am not a lawyer (not while I'm sending
messages, anyway), that the real effect of the "Do Not Disassemble"
warnings is to protect unpublished algorithms.  As I understand it, an
algorithm is a basic idea, and cannot be patented or copyrighted any
more than a mathematical theorem can.  A particular implementation of
that algorithm is, however, copyrightable.  By adding a prohibition
against disassembly, companies give themselves a cause for action if
their secret algorithms make it into the public domain ("He must have
disassembled, etc.").

Also, remember that lawyers routinely write unenforceable provisions
into contracts for intimidation purposes.  I know of cases where
employees where asked to sign non-disclosure agreements so broadly
written that, had they been enforceable, the employees would have been
unable to seek outside employment in their fields.  When they
complained, they were told not to worry, that the offensive provisions
couldn't be enforced.

All of which takes us pretty far afield.  Weren't we talking about C?

--bob--