• Home
  • 1st Annual Symposium
  • About
  • Available Positions
  • Issues
    • Vol. 4 Issue 2
    • Vol. 4 Issue 1
    • Vol. 3 Issue 3
    • Vol. 3, Issue 2
    • Vol. 3, Issue 1
    • Vol. 2, Issue 3
    • Vol. 2, Issue 2
    • Vol. 2, Issue 1
    • Vol. 1, Issue 1
  • Staff
    • 2009-2010 Staff
    • 2010-2011 Staff
    • 2011-2012 Staff
    • 2012-2013 Staff
  • Submissions
  • Subscribe
Featured Article

A featured article from the current issue of the Intellectual Property Brief.

Daily Blog

A daily blog of IP-related news and issues

Articles

All of the Intellectual Property Brief’s published articles. All articles are hand-selected from outside submissions and from our very own IPB staff members.

Issues

PDF versions of each of the Intellectual Property Brief’s issues.

Short Circuit

Case-by-case summaries of intellectual property related opinions from the Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit.

Home » Daily Blog

Patent and Reverse Engineering by Consumers: What Is the Permitted Line of Fair Use?

Submitted by Daniel Lee on April 9, 2010 – 2:02 PM39No Commenthttp%3A%2F%2Fwww.ipbrief.net%2F2010%2F04%2F09%2Fpatent-and-reverse-engineering-by-consumers-what-is-the-permitted-line-of-fair-use%2FPatent+and+Reverse+Engineering+by+Consumers%3A++What+Is+the+Permitted+Line+of+Fair+Use%3F2010-04-09+19%3A02%3A03Daniel+Leehttp%3A%2F%2Fwww.ipbrief.net%2F%3Fp%3D39

Consumer electronics utilize numerous patents filed by their developers. One of the emerging issues involving these patented machineries is reverse engineering by consumers. Consumers who are skilled enough to hack into the source codes of the hardware they purchase make modifications to the software, enabling it to run unauthorized applications or receive more service than the consumer paid for.

The problem that lies with the reverse engineering by the consumers is not the private practice of reverse engineering itself, but the communication of hacking methods or hacked source code to other consumers. For example, is it an infringement of a patent if an iPhone hacker enables the iPhone to run non-iPhone software and communicates such method to other customers? How about a cable modem hacker who communicates the method to increase service bandwidth to others, but does not ever practice the method himself?

Consumer protection groups say that customers are free to communicate “hacks” under free speech and other laws in the U.S.  Electronic companies argue that banning reverse engineering and hacking helps companies to protect their patents, and it also benefits customers by providing safe and secured products.

For more information, go to http://www.ip-watch.org/weblog/2010/03/09/electronics-manufacturers-use-us-legal-system-to-thwart-hardware-hacks/

By Daniel Lee

TwitterFacebookGoogle GmailGoogle ReaderDiggPrintBookmark/FavoritesShare

About the Author:

Author: Daniel Lee

Daniel Lee has written 3 posts for the IPB.

Leave a comment!

Click here to cancel reply »

Add your comment below, or trackback from your own site. You can also subscribe to these comments via RSS.

Be nice. Keep it clean. Stay on topic. No spam.

You can use these tags:
<a href="" title=""> <abbr title=""> <acronym title=""> <b> <blockquote cite=""> <cite> <code> <del datetime=""> <em> <i> <q cite=""> <strike> <strong>

This is a Gravatar-enabled weblog. To get your own globally-recognized-avatar, please register at Gravatar.

Copyright »

Appropriating Sid Vicious

Appropriating Sid Vicious

Mr. Brainwash’s works recently joined the increasing number of cases on appropriation art after photographer Dennis Morris sued the street artist for use of his 1977 picture of Sid Vicious.

TwitterFacebookGoogle GmailGoogle ReaderDiggPrintBookmark/FavoritesShare
More articles »

Patents »

Oxycontin and the Implications of Pay-For-Delay

Oxycontin and the Implications of Pay-For-Delay

The Food and Drug Administration’s recent decision, which reasoned that the drug posed public health and safety concerns, creates serious patent implications with regard to generic drugs.

TwitterFacebookGoogle GmailGoogle ReaderDiggPrintBookmark/FavoritesShare
More articles »

Trademark »

Supreme Sues Married to the Mob for $10 Million

Supreme Sues Married to the Mob for $10 Million

Supreme, one of the most coveted skate-inspired clothing brands, is suing women’s clothing brand Married to the Mob and its founder Leah McSweeney for trademark infringement to the tune of $10 million.

TwitterFacebookGoogle GmailGoogle ReaderDiggPrintBookmark/FavoritesShare
More articles »

Facebook

Accepting Submissions

The IP Brief is currently accepting submissions. We are looking for papers that address a legal topic relating to any area of intellectual property. Please submit completed papers and a cover page with the name and title of the article to ipbrief [at] wcl.american.edu. Any questions can also be sent to this e-mail address.

Blogroll

  • American University Washington College of Law
  • Carrollogos
  • Copyright Blog
  • GamePolitics
  • Intellectual Property Watch
  • PatentlyO
  • Program on Information Justice and Intellectual Property
  • Spicy IP
  • The TTABlog®
  • ©ollectanea

Tags

Archives

  • May 2013
  • April 2013
  • March 2013
  • February 2013
  • January 2013
  • December 2012
  • November 2012
  • October 2012
  • September 2012
  • August 2012
  • July 2012
  • June 2012
  • May 2012
  • April 2012
  • March 2012
  • February 2012
  • January 2012
  • December 2011
  • November 2011
  • October 2011
  • September 2011
  • August 2011
  • July 2011
  • June 2011
  • May 2011
  • April 2011
  • March 2011
  • February 2011
  • January 2011
  • December 2010
  • November 2010
  • October 2010
  • September 2010
  • August 2010
  • July 2010
  • June 2010
  • May 2010
  • April 2010
  • March 2010
  • January 2010

Random Posts

How Much is a Twitter Account Worth? The New York Times Throws Down the Gauntlet on Patent Reform Children’s Privacy Rules Grow to Include Booming Mobile Market Musician v. Politician: When Creative Control and Political Branding Are at Odds Pay-for-Delay Settlements: When Patent Principles Trump Antitrust Concerns . . . And Should They? Going “Up”? Utah Homebuilder Transports Residents to the Fantasy World of Disney’s “Up” In Honor of Adam Yauch: Sampling, Music Licensing, and the Beastie Boys’ “Paul’s Boutique” Out Fox’ed: Central District of California Judge Denies Preliminary Injunction to Fox over Dish’s AutoHop and Prime-Time-Anytime Features  Fight Against Piracy Continues - Next on the List … Digital Storage Sites Viacom’s Appeal Not So Appealing After YouTube Filing Unauthorized Stock Photo Use More Likely to Get Infringers in Hot Water Than Music or Video Downloading
(refresh random posts)

Latest Video Post

Relatively New Anti-Piracy PSA: Another Analogy Comparison of Piracy to Stealing Cars or an Effective Message?

Recent Posts

  • Supreme Sues Married to the Mob for $10 Million
  • Appropriating Sid Vicious
  • Chick-Fil-A’s ‘Eat Mor Chikin’ Trumps Kale-Promotion Slogan
  • Oxycontin and the Implications of Pay-For-Delay
  • Oh, That’s Different … Never mind: USPTO Withdraws Ruling that IPAD MINI is “Merely Descriptive”

Twitter

  • No public Twitter messages.
  • Copy / Paste
  • Site Search
  • Wikipedia
  • Google
  • Facts
  • Amazon
  • eBay
  • Outlook
  • Gmail
  • Y! Mail
  • Twitter
  • Search & Share
Powered by WordPress | Log in | Entries (RSS) | Comments (RSS) | Arthemia Premium theme by Colorlabs Project
The American University Intellectual Property Brief is licensed by the staff of the American University Intellectual Property Brief under a Creative Commons Attribution 3.0 United States License. IPBrief.net is hosted by Dan Rosenthal. For technical queries, contact dan@danrosenthal.org

Creative Commons License