Date: Sun, 19 May 1996 15:11:46 -0400 (EDT) From: John Brann <jbrann@panix.com> To: imdave@synet.net (Dave Bodenstab) Cc: questions@freebsd.org (freeq) Subject: Re: Opinions wanted on a non-disclosure agreement Message-ID: <199605191911.PAA00457@jbrann.dialup.access.net> In-Reply-To: <199605191633.LAA02025@base486> from Dave Bodenstab at "May 19, 96 11:33:49 am"
next in thread | previous in thread | raw e-mail | index | archive | help
Dave Bodenstab wrote... > [Text of NDA removed...] #include "PinchOfSalt" I have no legal training, but I am a principal of a commercial software company and I do have a software patent pending. (I guess this makes me a member of the Legions of Darkness in some peoples' book, but I digress.) I have to deal with copyright and patent issues every week, so I have more than a layman's exposure to this stuff. > Now, the problem I have is that the last two terms seem contradictory. > If I release the source under the 2nd to last term, then any third > party can discern the *proprietary information* by examining the source, > thus, I would be violating the last term. No, I don't think so. Copyright inheres in a representation of a piece of information, not the information itself. So deriving source code from the copyrighted material, and distributing the source code is OK, as long as you don't ship the actual material (or parts of it) you obtained from the company. [...] > > The company apparently wants to retain the right to patent their software > and believes that releasing the interface specs would somehow interfere > with this. Not that I care... I don't want their software, I just > want to talk to their hardware from my FreeBSD box! > This is a different matter entirely. Whereas (I must spend too much time talking to lawyers if I'm using words like that :-) copyright inheres in the representation, patent rights exist in the idea itself. Disclosing the nature of the idea before jumping through the appropriate hoops with the Patent and Trademark Office can invalidate their patent claim. Now, if they are trying to patent software and you want programming interface information, there should be no problem. You will produce a driver (or something) which emulates their (very clever and original) driver. Therefore there is no crossover of ideas, and you are not invalidating their patent rights... UNLESS the clever thing they are trying to patent is obviously deducible from the nature of the hardware interface. Judging that is tricky, and lawyers and courts are _extremely_ bad at it. This is the only Intellectual Property problem I see here. To summarize... If they haven't started their patent application, then they may be in trouble here IFF the material they have to give you documenting the hardware can be shown to make the software idea they are patenting clear to a 'competent practitioner'. > Bottom line then: since this would be just a project for *fun*, does > this look like its something that I should consider getting involved with? Don't write it off yet. It's probably the case that the info you want is only going to fall into the copyright field, so you can sign the NDA and have some fun. The only remaining danger I see is that if _you_ sign the NDA, only you will be privy to updates, if any arise. So if the hardware interface changes, either you fix it or the freeware driver dies. > > Thanks for your comments (and putting up with this *long* post) > > > Dave Bodenstab > imdave@synet.net > John -- Beavis and Butt-Head; Vladimir and Estragon for the '90s. finger jbrann@panix.com for pgp public key
Want to link to this message? Use this URL: <https://mail-archive.FreeBSD.org/cgi/mid.cgi?199605191911.PAA00457>