• Home
  • About
  • Available Positions
  • Issues
    • 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
  • Submissions
  • Subscribe
  • Vol. 3, Issue 2
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.

Video

Blog posts featuring video clips.

Issues

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

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 »

Go North, Young Bill: The SOPAfication of Canada

Go North, Young Bill: The SOPAfication of Canada

Despite the tremendous opposition to SOPA and PIPA in the United States, lobbyists are pushing Canada to incorporate SOPA-like provisions into Bill C-11, Canada’s latest attempt to toughen their copyright protections. Michael Geist, a Canadian …

More articles »

Patents »

Kodak: An Example of What Not to do With Your Patents.

Kodak: An Example of What Not to do With Your Patents.

Kodak has been buying up patents for a technology that competes with its old film technology in order to keep its dying film market alive. However, its impending bankruptcy most likely means that only the patents it holds can save it.

More articles »

Trademark »

The Power of Red: The Shoe Showdown Between Louboutin and Yves Saint Laurent

The Power of Red: The Shoe Showdown Between Louboutin and Yves Saint Laurent

Louboutin appeals a trial court’s decision to not enforce protection for his trademarked red soles. The trial court’s decision and the appeal highlight some interesting issues surrounding color trademark protection. The appellate court should not grant Louboutin trademark protection of his red soles because it could impermissibly hurt competition.

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

  • 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

Copyright in the Classroom: Why Comprehensive Copyright Education is Necessary in United States K-12 Education Curriculum Battle of the Blogs: New York Times Sues The Huffington Post Over Parenting Blog “IP Briefly” Is Here! Final Announcement: Fall 2011 Submissions Due Today Chinese Pirates Should Brace for the U.S. Government's Squall Zediva Makes Hollywood's Business Model Totter Just a Little More Aiming for a Bite Out of Apple E-book Publishers Seek to Put Restrictions on Library Use of E-books Couple seeks to trademark “Occupy Wall Street” Can ICANN?  Can’t Yet Tell The Absence of Common Sense from the Copyright Act’s Treatment of Software and the First Sale Doctrine
(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

  • The Power of Red: The Shoe Showdown Between Louboutin and Yves Saint Laurent
  • Keep Off Kardashians! The Gap Fights Back, Retaliates to Kim K’s Suit Over Alleged Misappropriation of Her Celebrity Persona
  • Go North, Young Bill: The SOPAfication of Canada
  • Jailbreaking Exemption to Expire in 2012
  • Grooveshark Sued: Will the Safe Harbor Shield it from Liability?

Twitter

  • The Power of Red: The Shoe Showdown Between Louboutin and Yves Saint Laurent - http://t.co/1uHllGB8 by Brandon Marsh
  • Go North, Young Bill: The SOPAfication of Canada - http://t.co/c1We3GjL by Carrie Sager
  • Jailbreaking Exemption to Expire in 2012 - http://t.co/nLWKOJcI by Alexandra Mackey
  • Grooveshark Sued: Will the Safe Harbor Shield it from Liability? - http://t.co/Lu88Zjs7 by Corsica Smith
  • 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