• Specific Year
    Any

Abbott, John --- "Reverse Enginerring of Software: Copyright and Interoperability" [2003] JlLawInfoSci 2; (2003) 14 Journal of Law, Information and Science 7

[*] Dr John Abbot has a Graduate Diploma in Applied Computing and a Juris Doctor degree from the University of Queensland, and is currently completing an LLM.

[1] RA Kreiss, ‘Copyright Protection and Reverse Engineering of Software’ (1994) 19 University of Dayton Law Review 837.

[2] SC Daughtrey, ‘Reverse Engineering of Software for Interoperability and Analysis’ (1994) 47 Vanderbilt Law Review 145; GR Ignantin, ‘Let the Hackers Hack: Allowing the Reverse Engineering of Copyrighted Computer Programs to achieve Compatibility’ (1992) 140 University of Pennsylvania Law Review 1999; B Fitzgerald, ‘Intellectual Property in Digital Architecture (including Software): The Question of Digital Diversity’ (2001) European Intellectual Property Review 121; G Weiner, ‘Reverse Engineering as a Method of Achieving Compatibility in the Computer Industry’ (1997) 6 University of Baltimore Property Law Journal 1.

[3] Sega Enterprises Ltd v Accolade Inc. [1993] USCA9 19; 977 F.2d 1510 (9th Cir. 1992).

[4] Atari Games Corp. v Nintendo of America Inc [1992] USCAFED 794; 975 F.2d 832 (Fed. Cir. 1992).

[5] See for example, s. 1 Canadian Copyright Act which defines a computer program as ‘a set of instructions or statements, expressed, fixed, embodied or stored in any manner, that is to be used directly or indirectly in a computer in order to bring about a specific result’.

[6] Apple Computer v Macintosh Computers (1986) [1987] 1 F.C. 173, 10 C.P.R. (3d) 1 at 11.

[7] A Johnson-Laird, ‘Software Reverse Engineering in the Real World’ (1994) 19 University of Dayton Law Review 843.

[8] ‘US Combats International Software Piracy’ Journal of Proprietary Rights, July 1993, 31.

[9] Computer Associates International Inc v Altai Inc 23 U.S.P.Q. (2d) 1241 at 1244 (2d Cir. 1992); Daniels DWT, ‘Learned Hand Never Played Nintendo: A Better Way to think about the Non-Literal, Non-Visual Software Copyright Cases’ (1994) 61 University of Chicago Law Review 613.

[10] M Bergner, ‘Changing Views: A Comment on Intellectual Property Protection for the Computer User Interface’ (1998) 42 St Louis Law Journal 301; Ahmed H, ‘The Copyrightability of Computer Program Graphical User Interfaces’ (2001) 30 Southwestern University Law Review 479.

[11] Kewanee Oil Corp v Bicron Corp.[1974] USSC 86; , 416 U.S. 470, 476 (1974).

[12] Secure Services Technology Inc v Time & Space Processing 772 F. Supp. 1354, 1361 n.16 (E.D. VA. 1989).

[13] Copyright Law Review Committee, Report on Software Protection (Office of Legal Information and Publishing, A-G’s Department, Canberra (1995)) p 152.

[14] G Dworkin, ‘The Concept of Reverse Engineering in Intellectual Property Law and its Application to Computer Programs’ (1990) 1 Intellectual Property Law Journal 164.

[15] BC Behrens & RR Levary, ‘Legal Aspects – Software Reverse Engineering and Copyright’ (1997) 31 John Marshall Law Review 1; CM Guillou, ‘The Reverse Engineering of Computer Software in Europe and the United States: A Comparative Approach’ (1998) 22 Columbia –VLA Journal of Law and the Arts 533.

[16] Sony Computer Entertainment v Connectix Corp 48 F. Supp. 2d 1212, 1214 (N.D. Cal. 1999).

[17] Sony Computer Entertainment v Connectix Corp. [2000] USCA9 80; 203 F.3d 596, 601 (9th Cir. 2000).

[18] Sony Computer Entertainment Inc v Connectix Corp [2000] USCA9 80; 203 F.3d 596, 599 (9th Cir. 2000) (citing Andrew Laird Johnson, ‘Software Reverse Engineering in the Real World’ (1994) 19 University of Dayton Law Review 843, 846).

[19] A Johnson-Laird, ‘Software Engineering in the Real World’ (1994) 19 University of Dayton Law Review 843.

[20] Rappaport, I ‘EC Threatens Software Protection’, San Francisco Recorder, Feb 22, 1990, at 6 (Mr Rappaport was acting as Apple’s Intellectual Property Counsel).

[21] S Handa, ‘Reverse Engineering Computer Programs under Canadian Copyright Law’ (1995) 40 McGill Law Journal 621.

[22] D Bainbridge, ‘Computer Programs and Copyright: More Exceptions to Infringement’ (1993) 56 Modern Law Review 591 at 593.

[23] Above, n19.

[24] Flyde Microsystems Ltd v Key Radio Systems Ltd [1998] FSR 449; Johnson-Laird A, above, n19.

[25] Mars UK Ltd v Teknowledge (1999) 22 (8) I.P.D. 22076; CD Freedman, ‘The Protection of Computer Software in Copyright and the Law of Confidence: Improper Decompilation and Employee-Poaching’ (2000) 8(1) International Journal of Law and Information Technology 25.

[26] 82 F. Supp 2d 2d (S.D.N.Y. 2000).

[27] Above, n19.

[28] Atari Games Corp v Nintendo of America Inc [1992] USCAFED 794; 975 F.2d 832 (Fed. Cir. 1992).

[29] BC Behrens & RR Levary, ‘Legal Aspects – Software Reverse Engineering and Copyright’ (1997) 31 John Marshall Law Review 1; Lewis T, ‘Reverse Engineering of Software: An Assessment of the Legality of Intermediate Copying’ (2000) 20 Loyola of Los Angeles Entertainment Law Review 561.

[30] SC Daughtrey, ‘Reverse Engineering of Software for Interoperability and Analysis’ (1994) 47 Vanderbilt Law Review 145.

[31] Digital Millenium Copyright Act s. 1201(f)(4).

[32] Copyright Law Review Committee, Report on Software Protection (Office of Legal Information and Publishing, A-G’s Department, Canberra (1995) p 145.

[33] SC Daughtrey, ‘Reverse Engineering of Software for Interoperability and Analysis’ (1994) 47 Vanderbilt Law Review 145; MA Jacobs, ‘Copyright and Compatibility’ (1989) 30 Jurimetrics 91.

[34] Copyright Law Review Committee, Report on Software Protection (Office of Legal Information and Publishing, A-G’s Department, Canberra) (1995) p 158.

[35] Atari Games Corp v Nintendo of America Inc [1992] USCAFED 794; 975 F.2d 832 (Fed. Cir. 1992); Atari Games Corp v Nintendo of America Inc 30 U.S.P.Q.2d (BNA) 1401, 1407-09 (N.D. Cal. 1993). C Cifuentes & A Fitzgerald, ‘Reverse Engineering of Computer Programs: Comments on the Copyright Law Review Committee’s Final Report on Computer Software Protection’ (1995) 6(2) Journal of Law & Information Science 242; BD Jolish, ‘Rescuing Reverse Engineering’ (1998) 14 Computer & High Technology Law Journal 509; DI Bainbridge, ‘Computer Programs and Copyright: More Exceptions to Infringement’ (1993) 56 Modern Law Review 59; GR Ignantin, ‘Let the Hackers Hack: Allowing the Reverse Engineering of Copyrighted Computer Programs to Achieve Compatibility’ (1992) 140 University of Pennsylvania Law Review 1999; A Johnson-Laird, ‘Software Reverse Engineering in the Real World’ (1994) 19 Dayton Law Review 843; Mitek Holdings Inc v Arce Engineering 864 F. Supp 1568; AJ Mahajan, ‘Intellectual Property, Contracts and Reverse Engineering after ProCD: A proposed Compromise for Computer Software’ (1999) 67 Fordham Law Review 3297; BC Behrens & RR Levary, ‘Legal Aspects – Software Reverse Engineering and Copyright’ (1997) 31 John Marshall Law Review 1; RA Kreiss, ‘Copyright Protection and Reverse Engineering of Software’ (1994) 19 University of Dayton Law Review 837.

[36] Feist Publications Inc v Rural Telephone Service Co Inc 20 IPR 129 (U.S. Sup Ct) (1991).

[36A] Above n 36.

[37] Sony Corp. v Universal City Studios Inc [1984] USSC 14; 464 U.S. 417, 429 (1984).

[38] Bonito Boats Inc v Thunder Craft Boats Inc [1989] USSC 20; 489 U.S. 141, 160 (1989).

[39] T Lewis, ‘Reverse Engineering of Software: An Assessment of the Legality of Intermediate Copying’ (2000) 20 Loyola of Los Angeles Entertainment Law Review 561.

[40] J Mills, ‘Possible Defences to Complaints for Copyright Infringement of Computer Software: Implications for Antitrust and Intellectual Property Law’ (1998) 80 Journal of Patent & Trademark Office Society 101, 106.

[41] 17 U.S.C. 106.

[42] Sony Computer Entertainment Inc v Connectix Corp, [2000] USCA9 80; 203 F.3d 596, (9th Cir. 2000).

[43] 17 U.S.C. 102(b) (1994).

[44] Bateman v Mnemonics Inc. [1996] USCA11 1157; 79 F.3d 1532, 1547 (11th Cir. 1996).

[45] Toro Co v R&R Prods. Co., F.2d 1208, 1212 (8th Cir. 1986).

[46] JM Besek, ‘Courts Struggle to Formulate Test for Substantial Similarity in Computer Software Programs’ (1993) New York Law Journal, S5; D Goldberg and RJ Bernstein, ‘After “Lotus”: A Conflict in the Circuits’, (1995) May 19, 3; MM Barry, ‘Software Copyright Upgrade – Engineering Dynamics v Structural Software extends Abstraction-Filtration Comparison Test to Software Input Data Formats’ (1995) 39 St Louis Law Journal 1309.

[47] Computer Associates Inc v Altai [1992] USCA2 1158; 982 F.2d 693 (2d Cir. 1992).

[48] Engineering Dynamics Inc v Structural Software Inc [1994] USCA5 1735; 26 F.3d 1335 (5th Cir 1994).

[49] John Richardson Computers Ltd v Flanders and Anor [1993] F.S.R. 497; R Arnold, ‘Infringement of copyright in computer software by non-textual copying: first decision by an English court: John Richardson Computers Ltd v Flanders(1993) 15(7) European Intellectual Property Review 250; ‘John Richardson Computers Ltd v Flanders: A commentary’ (1993) 9(2) Computer Law & Practice 70.

[50] DS Kajala, ‘Copyright Protection of Computer Documents, Reverse Engineering and Professor Miller’ (1994) 19 University of Dayton Law Review 975; AR Miller, ‘Copyright Protection for Computer Programs, Databases, and Computer-Generated Works: Is Anything New Since CONTU?’ (1993) 106 Harvard Law Review 977, 1013; RH Lande & SM Sobin, ‘High Technology, Antitrust & the Regulation of Competition: Reverse Engineering of Computer Software and U.S. Antitrust Law’ (1996) 9 Harvard Journal of Law and Technology 237; LD Graham & RO Zerbe, ‘Economically Efficient Treatment of Computer Software: Reverse Engineering, Protection and Disclosure’ (1996) 22 Rutgers Computer & Technology Law Journal 61; P Samuelson & Scotchmer ‘The Law and Economics of Reverse Engineering’ [2002] YaleLawJl 27; (2002) 111 Yale Law Journal 1575.

[51] DS Kajala, ‘Copyright Protection of Computer Documents, Reverse Engineering and Professor Miller’ (1994) 19 University of Dayton Law Review 975.

[51A] Above n 51.

[52] WA Rothnie, ‘Idea and Expression in a Digital World’ (1998) 9(1) Journal of Law and Information Science 59.

[53] LD Graham & RO Zerbe, ‘Economically Efficient Treatment of Computer Software: Reverse Engineering, Protection and Disclosure’ (1996) 22 Rutgers Computer & Technology Law Journal 61.

[54] AR Miller, ‘Copyright Protection for Computer Programs, Databases, and Computer-Generated Works: Is Anything New Since CONTU?’ (1993) 106 Harvard Law Review 977, 1013.

[55] DA Rice, ‘Sega and beyond: A Beacon for Fair Use Analysis…..At Least as Far as it goes’ (1994) 19 University of Dayton Law Review 1131; KE Georgenson, ‘Reverse Engineering of Copyrighted Software: Fair Use or Misuse?’ (1996) 5 Albany Law Journal 291.

[56] Sega Enterprises Ltd v Accolade Inc [1993] USCA9 19; 977 F.2d 1510 (9th Cir. 1992).

[57] Sony Computer Entertainment Inc. v Connectix Corp [2000] USCA9 80; 203 F.3d 596 (9th Cir. 2000).

[58] Walker v University Books [1979] USCA9 965; 602 F.2d 859, 864 (9th Cir. 1979).

[59] T Lewis, ‘Reverse Engineering of Software: An Assessment of the Legality of Intermediate Copying’ (2000) 20 Loyola of Los Angeles Entertainment Law Review 561.

[60] Johnson Controls Inc. v Phoenix Control Systems Inc., 886 F.2d 1173, 1175 (9th Cir. 1989); Apple Computer Inc v Formula International Inc. [1984] USCA9 205; 725 F.2d 521, 524-25, (9th Cir. 1984).

[61] 17 U.S.C. s 117(1).

[62] National Commission on New Technological Uses of Copyrighted Works (CONTU) (1978) Report at 13.

[63] Harper & Row, Publishers, Inc v Nation Enterprises, [1985] USSC 128; 471 U.S. 539.

[64] Hustler Magazine Inc v Moral Majority Inc., 796 F. 2d 1148, 1152 (9th Cir. 1986).

[65] Feist Publications Inc v Rural Tel Serv [1991] USSC 50; 499 U.S. 340 (1991).

[66] Sony v Universal City Studios Inc.[1984] USSC 14; , 464 U.S. 417 (1984).

[67] Above, n64.

[67A] Above n 57.

[68] Campbell v Acuff-Rose Music Inc. 510 U.S. 569 (1994).

[69] JA Williams, ‘Can Reverse Engineering Ever be Fair Use? Application of Campbell’s ‘Transformative Use’ Concept’ (1996) 71 Washington Law Review 255.

[69A] Above n 68.

[69B] Above n 69.

[69C] Above n 68.

[70] Atari Games Corp v Nintendo of America, Inc [1992] USCAFED 794; 975 F.2d 832, 842 (Fed. Cir. 1992).

[71] Above, n 57.

[71A] Above n 68.

[72] S Karas, ‘Sony Computer Entertainment, Inc v Connectix Corp’ (2001) 16 Berkley Technology Law Journal 33.

[73] JA Szepes, ‘Maximizing Protection for Computer Software’ (1995) 12 Santa Clara Computer and High Technology Law Journal 173; JT Soma, SK Black-Keeffer and AR Smith, ‘Minimizing Reverse Engineering: Sample Language for Dual United States and European Union Software Licenses’ (1995) 24 Denver Journal of International Law and Policy 145.

[74] MA Lemley, ‘Intellectual Property and Shrinkwrap Licenses’ (1995) 68 Southern California Law Review 1239.

[75] Step-Saver Data Systems v Wyse Technology [1991] USCA3 829; 939 F.2d 91(3d Cir. 1991); Arizona Retail Systems v Software Link Inc 831 F. Supp.759 (D. Ariz. 1993).

[76] ProCD Inc v Zeidenberg, 86 F.3d 1447, 1452 (7th Cir. 1996); Hill v Gateway 2000 Inc 105F.3d 1147, 1149 (7th Cir. 1997).

[77] DA Rice, ‘Software License Prohibitions Against Reverse Engineering’ (1992) 53 University of Pittsburgh Law Review 543, 548.

[78] FJ Pita, ‘Reconciling Reverse Engineering and Conflicting Shrinkwrap License Terms Under U.C.C. Article 2B: A Patent Law Solution’ (1998) 14 Santa Clara Computer and High Technology Law Journal 465; B Goodman, ‘Honey: I Shrink-Wrapped the Consumer: The Shrink-Wrap Agreement as an Adhesion Contract’ (1999) 21 Cardozo Law Review 319.

[79] M Leaffer, ‘Engineering Competitive Policy and Copyright Misuse’ (1994) 19 University of Dayton Law Review 18; KE Georgenson, ‘Reverse Engineering of Copyrighted Software: Fair Use or Misuse?’ (1996) 5 Albany Law Journal 291; T Dorenkamp, ‘Copyright Misuse or a Right to Compete? A Critique of Alcatel USA v DGI Technologies(2001) 9 Texas Intellectual Property Law Journal 269.

[80] MI Koffsky, ‘Patent Preemption of Computer Software Contracts Restricting Reverse Engineering: The Last Stand?’ (1995) 95 Columbia Law Review 1160; JE Mauk, ‘The Slippery Slope of Secrecy: Why Patent Law Preempts Reverse-Engineering Clauses in Shrink-Wrap Licenses’ (2001) 43 William and Mary Law Review 819.

[81] TD Rakoff, ‘Contracts of Adhesion: An Essay in Reconstruction’ (1983) 96 Harvard Law Review 1173.

[82] B Goodman, ‘Honey: I Shrink-Wrapped the Consumer: The Shrink-Wrap Agreement as an Adhesion Contract’ (1999) 21 Cardozo Law Review 319.

[83] Gray v Zurich Ins Co 419 P.2d 168 (Cal. 1966).

[84] T Dorenkamp, ‘Copyright Misuse or a Right to Compete? A Critique of Alcatel USA v DGI Technologies(2001) 9 Texas Intellectual Property Law Journal 269.

[85] Lasercomb America v Reynolds [1990] USCA4 2079; 911 F.2d 970, 15 U.S.P.Q. 2d (BNA) 1846 (4th Cir. 1990).

[86] Morton Salt v G.S. Suppiger [1942] USSC 30; 314 U.S. 488, 52 U.S.P.Q. (BNA) 30 (1942).

[86A] Above n 85.

[87] Service & Training Inc v Data General Corp. [1992] USCA4 756; 963 F.2d 680, 683, 23 U.S.P.Q.2d (BNA) 1102, 1104 (4th Cir. 1992).

[88] Alcatel USA Inc. v DGI Technologies Inc [1999] USCA5 155; 166 F.3d 772, 777, 49 U.S.P.Q.2d (BNA) 1641, 1642 (5th Cir. 1999).

[89] M Leaffer, ‘Engineering Competitive Policy and Copyright Misuse’ (1994) 19 University of Dayton Law Review 18; KE Georgenson, ‘Reverse Engineering of Copyrighted Software: Fair Use or Misuse?’ (1996) 5 Albany Law Journal 291; T Dorenkamp, above, n84.

[89A] Above n 89.

[90] KE Georgenson, ‘Reverse Engineering of Copyrighted Software: Fair Use or Misuse?’ (1996) 5 Albany Law Journal 291.

[91] Harper & Row Publishers Inc v Nation Enterprises, [1985] USSC 128; 471 U.S. 539, 562,225U.S.P.Q. (BNA) 1073, 1081 (1985); Sony Corp. of America v Universal City Studios Inc [1984] USSC 14; 464 U.S. 417, 451, 220 U.S.P.Q. (BNA) 665, 682 (1984).

[91A] Above n 90.

[92] Lotus Development v Borland International 831 F. Supp. 223, 30 U.S.P.Q.2d (BNA) 1081 (D. Mass. 1993).

[93] A Johnson-Laird, ‘Software Engineering in the Real World’ University of Dayton Law Review 843.

[94] Atari Games Corp v Nintendo of America, Inc [1992] USCAFED 794; 975 F.2d 832, 842 (Fed. Cir. 1992); Sega Enterprises Ltd v Accolade Inc [1993] USCA9 19; 977 F.2d 1510 (9th Cir. 1992).

[95] JE Cohen, ‘Reverse Engineering and the Rise of Electronic Vigilantism: Intellectual Property Implications of ‘Lock-Out’ Programs’ (1995) 68 Southern California Law Review 1091; BJ Olive, ‘Anti-Circumvention and Copyright Management: Analysis of New Chapter 12 of the Copyright’ (2000) North Carolina Journal of Law & Technology.

[96] Atari Games Corp v Nintendo of America, Inc [1992] USCAFED 794; 975 F.2d 832 (Fed. Cir. 1992).

[97] Atari Games Corp. v Nintendo of America Inc. [1990] USCAFED 174; 897 F.2d 1572 (Fed. Cir 1990).

[98] Atari Games Corp v Nintendo of America, Inc [1992] USCAFED 794; 975 F.2d 832 (Fed. Cir. 1992).

[99] Sony Corp of America v Universal City Studios 464 U.S. at 429-30.

[100] Feist Publications v Rural Telephone Service Co [1991] USSC 50; 113 L. Ed. 2d 358, 111 S. Ct. 1282 at 1290.

[101] Twentieth Century Music v Aiken 422 U.S. at 156.

[102] Digital Millenium Copyright Act, Pub. L. No 105-304, sec. 103, 1201-03, 112 Stat. 2860, 2863-76 (1998).

[103] Digital Millenium Copyright Act, Pub L. No. 105-304, sec 103, 1201, 112 Stat.2860, 2863 (1998).

[104] See 17 U.S.C. s 1201(a)(3)(A).

[105] HC Anawalt, “Using Digital Locks in Invention Development” (1999) 15 Santa Clara Computer & High Technology Journal 363.

[106] Ibid.

[107] B Fitzgerald, ‘Intellectual Property Rights in Digital Architecture (including software): The Question of Digital Diversity’ (2001) European Intellectual Property Journal 121.

[107A] Above n 105.

[107B] Ibid.

[107C]

[108] Creative Technology v Aztech Systems [1997] F.S.R. 491.

[109] S Lai, ‘Recent Developments in Copyright Protection and Software Reverse Engineering in Singapore: A Triumph for the Ultra-protectionists?’ (1997) 9 European Intellectual Property Review 525; Wee N-L Loon, ‘Legitimising Reverse Engineering of Computer Programs in Copyright Law – How far have we gone in Singapore?’ (1996) 4(1) International Journal of Law and Information Technology 48.

[110] DS Kajala, ‘Copyright Protection of Computer Software in the United States and Japan: Part I’ [1991] 6 EIPR 195; DS Kajala, ‘Copyright Protection of Computer Software in the United States and Japan: Part II’ [1991] 7 EIPR 231; DS Kajala, ‘The First Case on Protection of Operating Systems and Reverse Engineering of Programs in Japan’ [1988] 6 EIPR 172; EG Durney, ‘Protection of Computer Programs under Japanese Copyright Law’ (1991) 9 UCLA Pacific Basin Law Journal 42.

[111] DS Kajala, ‘Copyright Protection of Computer Software in the United States and Japan: Part II’ [1991] 7 EIPR 231. Ibid.

[112] R Mishra, ‘Reverse Engineering in Japan and the Global Trend Towards Interoperability’ (1997) 4(2) Murdoch University Electronic Journal of Law http://www.murdoch.edu.au/elaw/

[113] Kajala DS, ‘The First Case on Protection of Operating Systems and Reverse Engineering of Programs in Japan’ [1988] 6 EIPR 172; Durney EG, ‘Protection of Computer Programs under Japanese Copyright Law’ (1991) 9 UCLA Pacific Basin Law Journal 42.

[114] J Espenshade, ‘Right to Reverse Engineer Software: Is Japan Next and Does it Really matter?’ (1994) 19 North Carolina Journal of International Law and Commercial Regulation 491.

[115] Special Report Trade Negotiators Turn Eastward, 11 International Trade Report (BNA) No. 3 at 105 (Jan. 19, 1994).

[116] B Rossi, ‘A Brash New Voice for the IP Arena’ Recorder, Feb 1, (1994) at 1.

[117] TR Reid & P Behr, ‘A Software Fight’s Blurred Battle Lines; U.S. Computer Companies Are on Both Sides as Japan Considers Copyright Law Changes’ Washington Post, Jan 11, 1994.

[118] R Mishra, ‘Reverse Engineering in Japan and the Global Trend Towards Interoperability’ (1997) 4(2) Murdoch University Electronic Journal of Law http://www.murdoch.edu.au/elaw/

[119] Copyright Law Review Committee, Report on Software Protection (Office of Legal Information and Publishing, A-G’s Department, Canberra) (1995) p 177.

[119A] Above n 118.

[120] D Karjala, ‘Copyright Protection of Computer Software in the US and Japan: Part II’ (1991) 7 European Intellectual Property Review 235.

[120A] Above n 118.

[121] EG Durney, ‘Protection of Computer Programs under Japanese Copyright Law’ (1991) 9 UCLA Pacific Basin Law Journal 42.

[121A] Above n 118.

[122] CM Guillou, ‘The Reverse Engineering of Computer Software in Europe and the United States: A Comparative Approach’ (1998) 22 Columbia –VLA Journal of Law and the Arts 533.

[123] Council Directive 91/250 on the Legal Protection of Computer Programs, 1991 O.J. (Directive122) 42; P Bruno, ‘Arenas, Implementation, Compliance and Enforcement: The European Community Directive For the Legal Protection of Computer Software’ (1992) 5 Transnational Law 803.

[124] CM Guillou, ‘The Reverse Engineering of Computer Software in Europe and the United States: A Comparative Approach’ (1998) 22 Columbia –VLA Journal of Law and the Arts 533; ‘EC: Violent Emotions Surge in Brussels over the Impending Changes to Software Copyright Laws’ Computer Weekly July 19, 1990.

[125] MJ Weichsellbaum, ‘The EEC Directive on the Legal Protection of computer Programs and U.S. Copyright Law: Should Copyright Law Permit Reverse Engineering of Computer Programs?’ (1991) 14 Fordham International Law Journal 1027.

[126] CM Guillou, ‘The Reverse Engineering of Computer Software in Europe and the United States: A Comparative Approach’ (1998) 22 Columbia –VLA Journal of Law and the Arts 533.

[127] Amended Proposal for a Council Directive on the Legal Protection of Computer Programs, 1990 O.J. (C320) 22.

[128] Guillou CM, ‘The Reverse Engineering of Computer Software in Europe and the United States: A Comparative Approach’ (1998) 22 Columbia –VLA Journal of Law and the Arts 533.

[129] J Haaf, ‘The EC Directive on the Legal Protection of Computer Programs: Decompilation and Security for Confidential Programming Techniques’ (1992) 30 Columbia Journal of Transnational Law 401; CM Guillou, ‘The Reverse Engineering of Computer Software in Europe and the United States: A Comparative Approach’ (1998) 22 Columbia –VLA Journal of Law and the Arts 533.

[130] V Marsland, ‘Copyright Protection and Reverse Engineering of Software – An EC/UK Perspective’ (1994) 19 University of Dayton Law Review 1021; MA Ehlich, ‘Fair Use or Foul Play? The EC Directive on the Legal Protection of Computer Programs and its Impact on Reverse Engineering’ (1994) 13 Pace Law Review 1003; JH Spoor, ‘Copyright Protection and Reverse Engineering of Software: Implementation and Effects of the EC Directive’ (1994) 19 University of Dayton Law Review 1063; JT Soma, Black-Keefer & AR Smith, ‘Minimizing Reverse Engineering: Sample Language for Dual United States and European Union Software Licenses’ (1995) 24 Denver Journal of Internation Law & Policy 145; C Reed, ‘Reverse Engineering Computer Programs’ (1991) 2 European Intellectual Property Journal 47.

[131] CM Guillou, ‘The Reverse Engineering of Computer Software in Europe and the United States: A Comparative Approach’ (1998) 22 Columbia –VLA Journal of Law and the Arts 533.

[132] P Peters & F Verhoestraete, ‘Software Protection Against Third Parties in Belgium’ (1996) 14 John Marshall Journal of Computer and Information Law 661.

[133] CM Guillou, ‘The Reverse Engineering of Computer Software in Europe and the United States: A Comparative Approach’ (1998) 22 Columbia –VLA Journal of Law and the Arts 533.

[134] Section 50B Copyright, Design, and Patents Act 1988 (UK).

[135] A Johnson-Laird, ‘Software Engineering in the Real World’ University of Dayton Law Review 843.

[136] WR Cornish, Intellectual Property: Patents, Copyright, Trademarks and Allied Rights (4th edn.) Street & Maxwell (1999) at 518.

[137] Section 296A Copyright, Designs and Patents Act 1988 (UK).

[138] Mars UK Ltd v Teknowledge Ltd (1999) 22(8) I.P.D. 22076 (Ch. 1999).

[139] CD Freedman, ‘The Protection of Computer Software in Copyright and the Law of Confidence: Improper Decompilation and Employee-Poaching’ (2000) 8(1) International Journal of Law and Information Technology 25; G Llewellyn, ‘Does copyright law recognize a right to repair’ (1999) 21(11) European Intellectual Property Review 596; J Harrington, ‘Mars UK v Teknowledge Limited’ (1999) 4(5) Communications Law 190; W Cook, ‘Mars and bars on software protection’ (1999) 10(3) Computers & Law 34.

[140] S Handa, ‘Reverse Engineering Computer Programs under Canadian Copyright Law’ McGill Law Journal 621.

[141] MF Morgan, ‘Trash Talking: The Protection of Intellectual Property Rights in Computer Software’ (1994) 26 Ottawa Law Review 425; above, n140.

[142] Copyright Law Review Committee, Report on Software Protection (Office of Legal Information and Publishing, A-G’s Department, Canberra (1995).

[143] Data Access Corporation v Powerflex Services Pty Ltd [1999] HCA 49; (1999) 45 IPR 353.

[144] Voon T, ‘Revisiting Computer Program Copyright in Australia: Data Access Corporation v Powerflex Services Pty Ltd’ (2000) 11 Australian Intellectual Property Journal 161; C Cifuentes and A Fitzgerald, ‘Reverse Engineering of Computer Programs: Comments on the Copyright Law Review Committee’s Final Report on Computer Software Protection’ (1995) 6(2) Journal of Law and Information Science 241.

[145] Data Access Corporation v Powerflex Services Pty Ltd [1999] HCA 49; (1999) 45 IPR 353 at 380.

[146] Section 10 Copyright Act (Cth) (1968).

[147] T Voon, “Revisiting Computer Program Copyright in Australia: Data Access Corporation v Powerflex Services Pty Ltd(2000) 11 Australian Intellectual Property Journal 161.

[148] Coogi Australia Pty Ltd v Hysport International Pty Ltd (1998) 41 IPR 591.

[149] P Samuelson & Scotchmer ‘The Law and Economics of Reverse Engineering’ [2002] YaleLawJl 27; (2002) 111 Yale Law Journal 1575.

Download

No downloadable files available