Clean space design (also known as Chinese wall technique) is a method of copying design by reverse engineer and create it without infringing copyright associated with the original design. The design of clean spaces is useful as a defense against copyright infringement as it relies on independent inventions. However, since independent discovery is not a defense against patents, the design of clean spaces usually can not be used to avoid patent restrictions.
This term implies that the design team works in a "clean" environment or is proven to be not contaminated by knowledge of proprietary techniques used by competitors.
Usually, clean room design is done by having someone check the system for reimplementation and ask this person to write the specifications. This specification is then reviewed by an attorney to ensure that no copyrighted materials are included. This specification is then implemented by the team without connection to the original inspector.
Video Clean room design
Example
Phoenix Technologies sells net space implementations from IBM-compatible BIOS to various PC clone manufacturers.
Several other PC clone companies, including Corona Data Systems, Eagle Computer, and Handwell Corporation, were sued by IBM for copyright infringement in 1984, and were forced to reimplement their BIOS in a way that did not infringe IBM's copyrights.
All three of these settlements occurred before Phoenix announced in July of that year, that they licensed their own BIOS code, firmly emphasizing the clean space process through which the Phoenix BIOS code was written by a programmer who did not even have previous exposure to Intel microprocessors, previous TMS9900 programmer. Until the late 1990s, IBM won millions of dollars from resolving BIOS copyright infringement claims against several other PC clone manufacturers such as Matsushita/Panasonic (1987) and Kyocera (1993-1994), although the latter suit was for offenses between 1985 and 1990.
Another clean room example design is the successful VTech clone of the Apple II ROM for Laser 128, the only computer model among dozens of Apple II compatibles that survive the litigation brought by Apple Computer.
ReactOS is an open source operating system created from redesigned Windows components from clean rooms.
Maps Clean room design
Case law
The design of clean spaces is usually used as best practice, but not strictly required by law. In NEC Corp v Intel Corp. (1990), NEC requested a declarative appraisal of Intel's allegations that NEC engineers simply copied the 8086 processor microcode in their NEC V20 clone. A US judge ruled that while the initial, internal revision of NEC's microcode was indeed a copyright infringement, the later, which actually entered into the NEC product, though originated from the previous one, was quite different so they could be deemed free of copyright infringement. While NEC itself did not follow a strict clean room approach in the development of their clone microcode, during the trial, they hired an independent contractor who was given access to specifications but eventually wrote code that had a certain resemblance to the NEC and Intel codes. From this evidence, the judge concluded that the similarity in a particular routine is a functional boundary problem resulting from the compatibility requirements, and thus the free possibilities of the creative element. Although the net space approach has been used as a precautionary measure considering the possibility of previous litigation (eg in the case of the Phoenix BIOS), the case of NEC v. Intel is the first time that a clean room argument is accepted in a US court trial. A related aspect worth mentioning here is that NEC does have a license for an Intel patent that governs the 8086 processor.
Sony Computer Entertainment, Inc. v. Connectix Corporation is a 1999 lawsuit that sets an important precedent in reverse engineering. Sony is seeking redress for copyright infringement on the Connectix Virtual Game Station emulator, alleging that its BIOS code has been copied to the Connectix product without permission. Sony won an early assessment, but the decision was canceled on appeal. Sony finally purchased the rights to the Virtual Game Station to prevent further sales and development. This establishes a precedent that addresses the legal implications of commercial reverse engineering efforts.
During production, Connectix was unsuccessful in trying the Chinese wall approach to reverse engineer the BIOS, so its engineers unpacked the object code directly. The success of Connectix's appeal states that the direct dismantling and observation of ownership codes is necessary because there is no other way to determine his behavior. From the verdict:
Some works are closer to the core than intended copyright protection than others. The Sony BIOS lies at a distance from the core as it contains unprotected aspects that can not be checked without copying. Therefore, the appeals court gave him a lower level of protection than traditional literary works.
See also
- Code morphing
References
Further reading
- Rachel Parker (September 28, 1987). 'Guaranteed Facilities' Solving Compatibility Conflicts . InfoWorld. p.Ã, 41. ISSNÃ, 0199-6649. Ã,
- Peter Groves (2011). Intellectual Property Law Dictionary . Edward Elgar Publishing. p.Ã, 53. ISBNÃ, 978-1-84980-778-4.
- Lee Burgunder (2010). Legal Aspects of Managing Technology (5th ed.). Learning Cengage. pp.Ã, 281-285. ISBN: 1-4390-7981-1.
- Jonathan Band; Masanobu Katoh (2011). Trial Interface 2.0 . MIT Press. ISBN: 978-0-262-29446-1.
Source of the article : Wikipedia
0 Comments