From: hasty@netcom.com (Amancio Hasty Jr)
Newsgroups: comp.sys.ibm.pc.hardware,comp.unix.bsd,comp.org.eff.talk
Subject: Re: Question on Diamond Clock Synthesizer
Date: 12 Oct 92 06:12:20 GMT
Distribution: inet
Organization: Netcom - Online Communication Services  (408 241-9760 guest)

In article <1992Oct12.044838.15514@fcom.cc.utah.edu> terry@icarus.weber.edu writes:
>In article <1b9hudINNmv1@agate.berkeley.edu>, curtis@cs.berkeley.edu (Curtis Yarvin) writes:
>|> In article <Bvy0H3.Lwq@mudos.ann-arbor.mi.us> mju@mudos.ann-arbor.mi.us (Marc Unangst) writes:
>|> >In article <1992Oct11.045446.1020@fcom.cc.utah.edu> terry@cs.weber.edu (A Wizard of Earth C) writes:
>|> >>"Batman" posted a message (id <4356bw@gotham.city>) disclosing a clock set
>|> >>algorithm for Diamond.  Sorry I didn't save it, but it's possibly illegal
>|> >>to distribute.  It may have been accidently archived somewhere.  It will
>|> >
>|> >It isn't illegal to distribute any more.  Diamond has claimed that the
>|> >method for setting their dot clocks is protected by trade secret laws.
>|> >Unfortuantely, in order for something to be a trade secret, it has to
>|> >be just that -- secret.
>|> 
>|> And, also, I didn't think reverse-engineering was illegal in this
>|> country.  After all, for distribution of a trade secret to be illegal
>|> the distributor has to be under nondisclosure contract to the originator -
>|> and you certainly don't sign anything like a contract when you buy
>|> a Diamond card.
>
>	Sorry, reverse engineering may not be illegal, bit it can still be
>litigated (and won) by the "damaged" party; please see:
>
>	Digital Equipment Corporation vs. EMC^2
>
>The case dealt with whether or not DEC could hold the BI bus proprietary and
>corporations engaged in "reverse engineering" it by producing boards (in this
>case, memory boards) liable for licensing fees.  DEC won, in case you had any
>doubts.
>
>|> If "Batman" had contracted with Diamond to do a driver under the conditions
>|> that he not release the clock set algorithm, then Diamond would
>|> certainly have every right to go after him.  If he just discovered it
>|> by looking at the driver, then their only weapon could be a patent -
>|> and I do doubt that Diamond has patented their clock set algorithm.
>
>Wide spread use of the information may result in "Bruce Wayne, Benefactor"'s
>disclosure being litigated by Diamond.  Remember that a "trade secret" is not
>held to be disclosed until a court decides that this is the case.  My
>suggestion is to avoid potential litigation by not using the information in
>a commercial product.  Someone who buys a Diamond product that comes with a
>drivers disk can probably claim "use" of an existing driver were they to make
>personal use of "Batman"'s posted code.  This is probably defnsable under
>first use law unless a signed license was returned to Diamond or there was a
>"shrink wrap license" involved and the user was in Mississippi or Missouri,
>both of which hold "shrink warp licensing" to be valid.
>
>There is a risk inherent in any action which may result in legal action.  I
>hope "Bruce" knew what the risks were before he disclosed the information.
>
>
>					Terry Lambert
>					terry@icarus.weber.edu
>					terry_lambert@novell.com
>---
>Any opinions in this posting are my own and not those of my present
>or previous employers.
>-------------------------------------------------------------------------------
>                                        "I have an 8 user poetic license" - me
> Get the 386bsd FAQ from agate.berkeley.edu:/pub/386BSD/386bsd-0.1/unofficial
>-------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Why bother with Diamond,
When you can buy an Orchid's F1280 or Artix's GraphicsEngine.

Please note that I have a pre-alpha X server working on both cards.

So, DON'T BUY DIAMOND!

Amancio Hasty
Newsgroups: comp.sys.ibm.pc.hardware