upvote

points

by bigyabai7 hours ago |
comments
upvoteby 151553 hours ago|
[-]
Everyone says this, and then exactly zero cases are cited in support of or against this creative legal theory known as "clean room RE."

No statute defines "clean room RE" and there's basically no relevant litigation establishing case law.

reply
upvoteby Dylan168072 hours ago|
parent|
next
[-]
When you say "case" does that mean you're rejecting the evidence of Phoenix technologies not getting sued along with all the other BIOS clones?
reply
upvoteby 1515542 minutes ago|
parent|
[-]
Absence of evidence isn't evidence of absence. "Not getting sued" doesn't validate a legal theory - legal theories are validated in court where they become case law. Until then, they are plainly speculative.

This "clean room RE" fabrication is also not something so obviously compelling that nobody would ever attempt to challenge it - it's just that nobody has cared to put dollars behind it. IP provenance cases are enormously difficult to prove and are almost always settled ahead of trial. This concept is software engineer folklore more than anything.

reply
upvoteby mort962 hours ago|
parent|
prev|
next
[-]
But there are plenty of successful projects which would probably have been taken down if it wasn't for clean room RE. I mean just look at the clean room IBM BIOS clones from "IBM compatibles" in the early days of the personal computer.
reply
upvoteby 1515537 minutes ago|
parent|
[-]
This is the same logic that the TSA uses to justify its existence. "We're so good nobody attempts it!"
reply
upvoteby mech4222 hours ago|
parent|
prev|
next
[-]
there isn't ?? I sorta thought we figured all this out decades ago when SMB and DeCSS were being reversed? I think dosemu or something as well ?

I seem to recall DeCSS being the 'hot button' as it was RE'd in a 'non clean' way, the code released, and then a 'clean room' RE could be made from the 'public' info ??

edit: actually, at the time I think there was German law allowing RE for 'interoperablity' or some such. But that was a long time ago so my memory might be off.

reply
upvoteby bigyabai3 hours ago|
parent|
prev|
[-]
Who volunteers to be the shmuck that fights Nintendo's lawyers in court? Who's funding the defense against Apple?

It's safest to err on the side of plausible deniability, any proximity to OEM software increases liability if things go wrong.

reply
upvoteby charcircuit1 hours ago|
parent|
[-]
Nintendo doesn't care. There's been proprietary Nintendo SDK code in libogc (open source library for making GameCube homebrew) for years. And more recently the various decompilation process have made recreations of linked code from the SDK that compile match byte for byte. In practice the legal risk of being sued into oblivion for this is not there. If anything there would be a DMCA takedown / cease and desist.
reply
upvoteby literallywho17 minutes ago|
parent|
[-]
Right, but they are one of the biggest DMCA abusers. They killed many fan projects. They killed game renting in Japan as a concept. They killed Yuzu (a Switch emulator). And they could change their mind at any time.
reply