Legitimizing Reverse Engineering Of Computer Programs In Copyright Law -- How Far Have We Gone In Singapore?

1996 ◽  
Vol 4 (1) ◽  
pp. 48-64
Author(s):  
N.-L. W. LOON
Keyword(s):  
Reverse Engineering ◽  
Computer Programs ◽  
Copyright Law

On Reverse Engineering and Decompilation

2017 ◽  
Author(s):  
Noam Shemtov
Keyword(s):  
Intellectual Property ◽  
Reverse Engineering ◽  
Software Industry ◽  
Critical Evaluation ◽  
Computer Programs ◽  
Copyright Law ◽  
Cloud Environment ◽  
Copyright Laws ◽  
Eu And Us ◽  
Software Interoperability

This chapter examines reverse engineering and the decompilation of computer programs, both of which are highly regulated under the current copyright regime. It begins with a practical overview of reverse engineering and decompilation of software, focusing on types of reverse engineering prevalent in the software industry, the various stages of reverse engineering, and the motivation and methods for reverse engineering. It then looks at the reasons for and benefits of decompilation, which is a category of reverse engineering, and examines software interoperability. At this stage the chapter considers what EU and US copyright laws say about decompilation, with particular emphasis on the role that the idea-expression dichotomy plays in decompilation scenarios. It also discusses the problem of entitlement with respect to intellectual property rules, and more specifically in the case of decompilation of computer programs. It provides a critical evaluation of Article 6 of the Software Directive in enabling decompilation in order to achieve interoperability. The chapter concludes with a commentary on reverse engineering in the cloud environment under copyright law.

Legal and Economic Justifi cation for Software Protection

2011 ◽  
pp. 328-339
Author(s):  
Bruno de Vuyst
Keyword(s):  
Reverse Engineering ◽  
Open Source ◽  
Open Source Software ◽  
Copyright Protection ◽  
Patent Protection ◽  
Computer Programs ◽  
Property Law ◽  
Software Protection ◽  
National Patent ◽  
The U.S

This chapter discusses legal and economic rationale in regards to open source software protection. Software programs are, under TRIPS1, protected by copyright (reference is made to the Berne Convention2). The issue with this protection is that, due to the dichotomy idea/expression that is typical for copyright protection, reverse engineering of software is not excluded, and copyright is hence found to be an insufficient protection. Hence, in the U.S., software makers have increasingly turned to patent protection. In Europe, there is an exclusion of computer programs in Article 52 (2) c) EPC (EPO, 1973), but this exclusion is increasingly narrowed and some call for abandoning the exclusion altogether. A proposal by the European Commission, made in 2002, called for a directive to allow national patent authorities to patent software in a broader way, so as to ensure further against reverse engineering; this proposal, however, was shelved in 2005 over active opposition within and outside the European parliament. In summary, open source software does not fit in any proprietary model; rather, it creates a freedom to operate. Ultimately, there is a need to rethink approaches to property law so as to allow for viable software packaging in both models.

Legal and Economic Justification for Software Protection

2009 ◽  
pp. 2831-2842
Author(s):  
Bruno de Vuyst ◽  
Alea Fairchild
Keyword(s):  
Reverse Engineering ◽  
Open Source ◽  
Open Source Software ◽  
Copyright Protection ◽  
Patent Protection ◽  
Computer Programs ◽  
Property Law ◽  
Software Protection ◽  
National Patent ◽  
The U.S

This chapter discusses legal and economic rationale in regards to open source software protection. Software programs are, under TRIPS1, protected by copyright (reference is made to the Berne Convention2). The issue with this protection is that, due to the dichotomy idea/expression that is typical for copyright protection, reverse engineering of software is not excluded, and copyright is hence found to be an insufficient protection. Hence, in the U.S., software makers have increasingly turned to patent protection. In Europe, there is an exclusion of computer programs in Article 52 (2) c) EPC (EPO, 1973), but this exclusion is increasingly narrowed and some call for abandoning the exclusion altogether. A proposal by the European Commission, made in 2002, called for a directive to allow national patent authorities to patent software in a broader way, so as to ensure further against reverse engineering; this proposal, however, was shelved in 2005 over active opposition within and outside the European parliament. In summary, open source software does not fit in any proprietary model; rather, it creates a freedom to operate. Ultimately, there is a need to rethink approaches to property law so as to allow for viable software packaging in both models.

Copyright Protection for Software 2.0?

2021 ◽  
pp. 323-340
Author(s):  
Hao-Yun Chen
Keyword(s):  
Neural Network ◽  
Neural Networks ◽  
Network Structure ◽  
Copyright Protection ◽  
Computer Programs ◽  
Copyright Law ◽  
Data Sets ◽  
Copyright Laws ◽  
Neural Network Structure ◽  
Over Time

Traditionally, software programmers write a series of hard-coded rules to instruct a machine, step by step. However, with the ubiquity of neural networks, instead of giving specific instructions, programmers can write a skeleton of code to build a neural network structure, and then feed the machine with data sets, in order to have the machine write code by itself. Software containing the code written in this manner changes and evolves over time as new data sets are input and processed. This characteristic distinguishes it markedly from traditional software, and is partly the reason why it is referred to as ‘software 2.0’. Yet the vagueness of the scope of such software might make it ineligible for protection by copyright law. To properly understand and address this issue, this chapter will first review the current scope of computer program protection under copyright laws, and point out the potential inherent issues arising from the application of copyright law to software 2.0. After identifying related copyright law issues, this chapter will then examine the possible justification for protecting computer programs in the context of software 2.0, aiming to explore whether new exclusivity should be granted or not under copyright law, and if not, what alternatives are available to provide protection for the investment in the creation and maintenance of software 2.0.

Machine Learning Models Under the Copyright Microscope: Is EU Copyright Fit for Purpose?

2021 ◽  
Author(s):  
BegoÑa Gonzalez Otero
Keyword(s):  
Machine Learning ◽  
Intellectual Property ◽  
Open Source Software ◽  
Computer Programs ◽  
Copyright Law ◽  
The Core ◽  
Eu Copyright Law ◽  
Core Components ◽  
Fit For Purpose ◽  
Software Licensing

Abstract This paper is based on a presentation given in December 2019 at the Lund’s University conference ‘Artificial Intelligence (AI), Data Protection and Intellectual Property in a European context’. The purpose of this article is to analyse the suitability of the copyright system over Machine Learning (ML) models, the so-called ‘core components’ of ML systems. Computer programs protection has always caused certain difficulties for intellectual property law. Internationally, agreement was reached in the 1970s to protect computer programs as literary works of copyright. ML models have been called ‘learning algorithms’, ‘AI computer programs’, and ‘software 2.0’. Yet there is no unanimity about what they are technically. This is relevant from a copyright perspective, because the regime of protection granted by copyright will be different depending on whether the ML model qualifies as a computer program, as a mathematical method, or as another type of work. Additionally, all proprietary and open source software licensing relies on copyright protection. In most open licenses, the license is not triggered if it is applied to something that is not protected by copyright (or related rights). Thus, it seems pertinent to question whether EU copyright law provides adequate protection for the core components of machine learning systems, the ML models.

Freedom to tinker

2016 ◽  
Vol 17 (2) ◽  
Author(s):  
Pamela Samuelson
Keyword(s):  
Computer Programs ◽  
Contract Law ◽  
Copyright Law ◽  
Legal Recognition ◽  
Legal Principles ◽  
Wide Range ◽  
The Law ◽  
Modest Degree

AbstractTinkering with technologies and other human-made artifacts is a longstanding practice. Freedom to tinker has largely existed without formal legal recognition. Tinkering has typically taken place in an unregulated zone within which people were at liberty to act unobstructed by others so long as they did not harm others. The main reason why it now seems desirable to articulate some legal principles about freedom to tinker and why it needs to be preserved is because freedom to tinker is being challenged by some legal developments. This Article explains that user-innovators have traditionally had considerable freedom to tinker under trade secrecy, patent, and trademark laws. Although copyright law permits a modest degree of tinkering with existing products, it restricts freedom to tinker more than other IP laws. Copyright law and sometimes contract law place substantial constraints on user rights to tinker with and modify computer programs and other digital works. These constraints are of particular concern to tinkerers because computer programs are embedded in such a wide range of technologies these days. This Article offers suggestions about how and why the law should protect a zone of freedom to tinker for socially beneficial purposes.

scholarly journals Making videogame history: videogame preservation and copyright law

2018 ◽  
Vol 1 (2) ◽  
pp. 103-108
Author(s):  
Yin Harn Lee
Keyword(s):  
Cultural Heritage ◽  
Reverse Engineering ◽  
Copyright Law ◽  
Cultural Preservation ◽  
Legislative Reform ◽  
Videogame Industry ◽  
Software Platforms

The continued accessibility of older videogames is threatened by the obsolescence of the hardware and software platforms on which they operate and the degradation of the physical media on which they are stored. This has made videogame preservation a topic of increasing concern to cultural heritage institutions. However, established preservation techniques, such as migration and emulation, raise numerous issues under copyright law, as they implicate rightholders' exclusive rights as well as protections against the circumvention of TPMs. This is exacerbated by the difficulty of locating the rightholders for a given videogame. Notwithstanding this, cultural heritage institutions may still take advantage of some flexibilities within the current copyright framework, in particular the exceptions relating to reverse engineering, decompilation, cultural preservation and orphan works, in order to begin the work of videogame preservation. In the longer term, it may be necessary for the sector to collaborate more closely with the videogame industry and to lobby for legislative reform.

Sign in / Sign up

Export Citation Format

Share Document