There is a precedent - the AT&T vs UC@Berkeley case.
http://cm.bell-labs.com/cm/cs/who/dmr/bsdi/930303.ruling.txt
"Plaintiff's first argument is that Defendants have copied the filenames and header files from 32V. Defendants insist that filenames and the contents of header files can be readily printed from Plaintiff's binary code (Joint Decl. at 28.1.1.), which Plaintiff has apparently distributed without restriction on redistribution. In addition, some of this code is available in reference manuals distributed by Plaintiff. (Carson Reply Aff. at 9.)"
"After reviewing the affidavits of Plaintiff's and Defendants, experts, a great deal of uncertainty remains as to what trade secrets Net2 might contain. One fact does seem clear: the header files, filenames, and function names used by Defendants are not trade secrets. Defendants could have printed these off of any of the thousands of unrestricted copies of Plaintiff's binary object code. (Kashtan Aff. at 9-11.) Moreover, the nonfunctional elements of the code, such as comments, cannot be trade secrets because these elements are minimal and confer no competitive advantage on Defendants. The copied elements that contain instructions, such as BREAD and CPIO, might perhaps be trade secrets, but Defendants' experts have argued persuasively that these instructions are either in the public domain or otherwise exempt. As Defendants have repeatedly emphasized, much of 32V seems to be publicly available."
"On the present record, however, it is impossible to determine whether the overall organization of Net2 has been disclosed. The record itself contains little information directly pertinent to this issue. Moreover, the parties' submissions hint that some of 32V's organization may already be publicly available. Berkeley has apparently released nonproprietary programs such as Net1 since 1987 (Regents Am. Opp'g Br. at 13), programs that presumably have divulged at least some information about 32V's organization."
In short, copy-and-paste is not the way to do things - clean-room is perfectly legit and there's already quite a bit of that going on in the MS Windows developer community anyway.
But when there's no way to get functionality without using similar code and similar data (such as headers) which are in the public domain it seems anyway, it's pointless worrying about it, let alone arguing about it. If Microsoft wants developers, they have to expose their APIs and turn a blind eye to publication of undocumented APIs - and if that disclosure is useful to a competitor, well, it turns out that Microsoft's maintaining its monopoly rests on keeping customers worldwide horribly insecure.
There's more than one way to skin a cat, and Microsoft's limping.
Just my 0.0c - hyperinflation of course! ;)
Wesley Parish
On Fri, 20 Jan 2006 08:39, Brian wrote:
I never stated it could not be written in another way. I stated that similar binary code should be expected. I guess i have to talk 'baby'.
2 + 2 = 4 two plus two equals four
I don't think i should have to talk like this to a developer, especialy to a developer. in theory, it could be done using diferent instructions, and use diferent regesters, but what would be the point. if it was not copied, but he personaly wrote this code. I am not trying to say it cant be written another way, im just saying dont point the finger at the victom, just because he was in the same room as the murderer.
brian