# Information Technology and Ethics/Intellectual Property Issues
## Plagiarism

Within the academic and artistic communities, plagiarism is a widespread problem that betrays a lack of integrity and trust. Plagiarism is fundamentally the unapproved use or appropriation of another person's ideas, works, or statements without giving due credit. This unethical behavior impedes knowledge and innovation growth in addition to undermining the fundamental values of intellectual honesty. Plagiarism, whether intentional or not, has serious repercussions for people, organizations, and the larger intellectual community. As such, it is critical that academics, authors, and artists understand the subtleties of plagiarism and use techniques to avoid it. This includes using someone’s work without crediting them as a source, effectively literary theft. This is an intellectual property issue because the works of others, whether in the forms of writings, spoken word, or other forms of media, is being essentially stolen and used, profited off of in the sense that it belongs to the fraud. Plagiarism is especially a concern in the current world, the explosion of the internet has also brought upon an explosion in content, and an easier access to said content, allowing for easy plagiarizing and difficulty to catch it.
First things first, it's important to distinguish between the many types of plagiarism. They include copying content verbatim without citing it, paraphrasing it incorrectly, giving sources not enough credit, and even self-plagiarism, which is the practice of using one's own previously published work for new purposes without giving credit. An awareness of these various types of plagiarism establishes the foundation for responsible creative and scholarly endeavors. Plagiarism has serious ethical implications because it can be treated the same as theft. It is intellectual property theft, and in the same way theft is unethical, plagiarism is congruently unethical. Theft is seen as unethical because it hurts others. Thieves are taking away resources and possessions from another party, which can cause emotional damage due to perhaps sentimental items taken away from them, and physical damage in the sense that they are hurting the other party’s ability to survive and achieve their prosperity. If a student were to plagiarize a research paper created by a fellow classmate, and post it on an academic website claiming it as their own, they may be taking away buzz and the engagement surrounding the content from the original creator, who deserves all of the praise and perhaps money due to it being their creation. In the extreme, this may cause a creator to lose out on money crucial to them living prosperously, while the plagiarizer is reaping the benefits unethically from work that isn’t theirs. Second, the key to avoiding plagiarism is learning the proper citation styles. The onus is on the author to provide precise and understandable citations whenever they use ideas or materials from outside sources. This means using recognized citation formats, such APA, MLA, or Chicago, to properly credit both direct quotes and paraphrased content. Writers uphold academic integrity and show respect for intellectual property by carefully documenting their sources. This inaccurately conveys a higher degree of credibility and knowledge for the plagiarizer. An individual that gains status and power by plagiarizing the works of others who are more knowledgeable than the individual actually is, they may find themselves in a position they are unqualified to be in, and this can have drastic consequences. An airplane pilot who got through their education and training through cheating on assignments poses a risk of being unqualified to fly a plane and endangers the lives of the passengers.
Furthermore, educational establishments are crucial in combating plagiarism by taking preventative action. Through the incorporation of plagiarism awareness programs into curriculum and the provision of thorough guidance on citation standards, educators can enable students to effectively negotiate moral quandaries. Furthermore, the institution's dedication to maintaining academic standards and developing an integrity-focused culture is demonstrated by the implementation of strict policies and procedures for identifying and disciplining cases of plagiarism. But preventing plagiarism calls for a comprehensive strategy that goes beyond simple enforcement. It requires that teachers foster pupils' information literacy and critical thinking abilities so they can distinguish between original and copied work. Furthermore, creating a community of scholars dedicated to intellectual integrity and encouraging ethical behavior are two benefits of cultivating an atmosphere that values collaboration and attribution. Given the ethical consequences plagiarism may have plus its similarities to theft, it is logical to presume there are severe legal consequences to plagiarism. Plagiarism isn’t illegal in most cases, it is usually a standard that non-federal institutions hold people accountable for, like schools or organizations people work at. These institutions will enact disciplinary action for breaches on their policy against plagiarism. Although, in cases where plagiarism is in violation of the author’s trademark, patent or copyright, legal action can occur.
Combating plagiarism is done through multiple ways, but the reason plagiarism occurs can generally be split between two reasons, and solutions are made for both. A lot of plagiarism is done by accident, lack of knowledge on how to properly give credit to the original author. These failures largely reflect teachers or institutions as a whole failing to educate and inform individuals on how to take content from other creators and properly give them credit for the work. In this case, implementing policies that enforce education on academical citing and crediting in academic institutions (or other relevant institutions) is sufficient to deteriorate ignorance as a cause for plagiarizing. The second reason that plagiarism happens is when it’s intentional. Intentional plagiarism happens for a multitude of reasons, such as lack of self-confidence in student’s abilities to write a good paper, lack of time management skills which force a student to copy someone else’s work to save time, or laziness in completing the task due to attitudes on the importance of said task. This is dealt with usually with strict no-tolerance policies on plagiarism from academic and other relevant institutions. Patent, Trademark, and Copyright laws also provide a deterrent to intellectual property thefts such as plagiarism. Relatively new technologies are also allowing for the enhanced detection of plagiarism, like plagiarism detection software. Although not perfect in being able to detect plagiarism, it provides relatively reliable plagiarism checking, and these tools will only get better.
In conclusion, plagiarism poses a serious risk to the integrity of creative and academic endeavors. Through the provision of awareness and resources to enable individuals to identify and steer clear of plagiarism, the encouragement of creativity, and the establishment of strong educational and legal frameworks, we can lessen its occurrence and preserve the values of academic integrity and intellectual honesty.

## Reverse Engineering

Merriam-Webster defines reverse engineering as “to disassemble and examine or analyze in detail (a product or device) to discover the concepts involved in manufacture usually in order to produce something similar”
Regarding the legality of Reverse engineering, Section 103(f) of the Digital Millennium Copyright Act states:
* Notwithstanding the provisions of subsection (a)(1)(A), a person who has lawfully obtained the right to use a copy of a computer program may circumvent a technological measure that effectively controls access to a particular portion of that program for the sole purpose of identifying and analyzing those elements of the program that are necessary to achieve interoperability of an independently created computer program with other programs, and that have not previously been readily available to the person engaging in the circumvention, to the extent any such acts of identification and analysis do not constitute infringement under this title.
* Notwithstanding the provisions of subsections (a)(2) and (b), a person may develop and employ technological means to circumvent a technological measure, or to circumvent protection afforded by a technological measure, in order to enable the identification and analysis under paragraph (1), or for the purpose of enabling interoperability of an independently created computer program with other programs, if such means are necessary to achieve such interoperability, to the extent that doing so does not constitute infringement under this title.
* The information acquired through the acts permitted under paragraph (1), and the means permitted under paragraph (2), may be made available to others if the person referred to in paragraph (1) or (2), as the case may be, provides such information or means solely for the purpose of enabling interoperability of an independently created computer program with other programs, and to the extent that doing so does not constitute infringement under this title or violate applicable law other than this section.
* For purposes of this subsection, the term “interoperability” means the ability of computer programs to exchange information, and of such programs mutually to use the information which has been exchanged.
Though Reverse Engineering is overall legal, it is not in patent law. Reverse Engineering is not legal in patent law because the owner of the patent has exclusive rights over the product.
Reverse engineering has been the subject of debate over its ethicality and legality. Arguers in favor of Reverse Engineering defend the practice, stating that there are benefits to Reverse Engineering, which include fixing compatibility issues, recreating obsolete parts, performing security assessments, and recreating the product cheaper.
Those who argue against the practice of Reverse Engineering state that it violates copyright laws and trade secret laws, and that it allows competitors to clone their products. For example, in the legal battle between Sega Enterprises and Accolade, Sega Enterprises accused Accolade of violating Intellectual Property law as the defendants Reverse Engineered the software of the console to create game cartridges without needing a license to do so by Sega.
However, in Bowers vs Baystate Technologies Inc, the federal court ruled in favor of Harold L. Bowers and his claim that Baystate Technologies Inc. violated the shrink wrap license agreement, which did not permit them to Reverse Engineer the software from Bowers.

## Open Source Code

Overview
It has long been said that the best things in life are free. Open source code is one of those “best things”. It is important to define the concept and to differentiate open source code from free open source software. Open source code refers to any available source code program in the public domain that can be shared, used, or modified by anyone. It is available to anyone wishing to improve it or use it in his/her applications. Open source software developers’ intent is to make profits from software services and support instead of the software itself.
History of Open Source Software
The concept of open source software emerged in the late 20th century as a response to the growing prevalence of proprietary software licenses. The Free Software Foundation, founded by Richard Stallman in 1985, played a significant role in promoting the principles of open source development.
Principles of Open Source
Open source software is governed by a set of principles that emphasize transparency, collaboration, and community-driven development. These principles include:
* Free Redistribution: Users are allowed to redistribute copies of the software freely, either as-is or with modifications.
* Access to Source Code: The source code of open source software must be made available to users, enabling them to study, modify, and improve the software.
* Permission to Modify: Users have the freedom to modify the software to suit their needs, provided they adhere to the terms of the open source license.
* No Discrimination Against Persons or Groups: Open source licenses cannot discriminate against any individual or group of users.
* No Discrimination Against Fields of Endeavor: Open source licenses cannot restrict the use of the software in specific fields of endeavor.
* Distribution of License: The rights granted by an open source license must apply to all recipients of the software.
Types of Open Source Licenses
There are various types of open source licenses, each with its own terms and conditions. Some common open source licenses include:
* GNU General Public License (GPL): This license requires that any derivative works based on the original software must also be distributed under the GPL.
* MIT License: This permissive license allows users to do almost anything they want with the software, including modifying and redistributing it, as long as they include the original copyright and license notice.
* Apache License: This license allows users to freely use, modify, and distribute the software, with the added provision that they must include a copy of the Apache License in any redistributions.
Challenges of Open Source
Despite its many benefits, open source software also presents certain challenges, including:
* Lack of Support: Some open source projects may lack formal support channels, leading to difficulties in troubleshooting and resolving issues.
* Compatibility Issues: Integrating open source software with proprietary systems can sometimes lead to compatibility challenges.
* Fragmentation: The decentralized nature of open source development can result in fragmentation, with multiple competing projects addressing similar needs.
* Legal and Licensing Concerns: Understanding and complying with open source licenses can be complex, particularly in projects with dependencies on multiple libraries and components.
The major intellectual property issues that involve open source software are a result of a user failing to understand or follow licensing agreement terms or guidelines. Although programs are termed as “free” and “open,” it is important to note that the licenses that grant such permissions might also come with strict conditions and requirements in order to grant such rights. In order to prevent further misuse or failure to comply, there are recommended steps to take when using open source content. For example, “understanding and planning intellectual property strategies,” “creating guidelines,” and finally, “auditing license terms”

## Competitive Intelligence

Competitive intelligence is legally obtained information used to improve a company's performance over its competitors. It is often integrated into a company's strategic plan. Airlines are a prime example of a company that uses competitive intelligence. Every day, they adjust the cost of their tickets in accordance with the information they collect. For instance, if competitors raise prices on a particular route, these airlines will follow to maximize revenue. Furthermore, airline companies meticulously monitor potential customers' behaviors to modify fairs. If they identify users repeatedly searching for specific flight details, then they will raise their rates and adjust prices accordingly.
Companies employ two distinct types of competitive intelligence. Strategic competitive intelligence enables firms to comprehend and address long-term challenges, encompassing technological shifts, market dynamics, and environmental disruptions. On the other hand, tactical competitive intelligence operates on a shorter time frame. This helps in decisions pertaining to measurable issues like keeping market shares safe. The pivotal difference lies not only in the utilization of competitive intelligence but also in its application. While a majority of companies gather competitive intelligence, merely half leverage it for decision-making. Many firms predominantly utilize competitive intelligence as a validation tool for pre-established decisions, shielding decision-makers from potential repercussions of poor choices without contributing to informed decision-making. Moreover, successful integration of competitive intelligence yields tangible benefits in operational outcomes. For instance, organizations granting sign-off authority to competitive intelligence analysts on major business decisions prioritize substance over mere presentation, diverging significantly from those neglecting competitive intelligence. Furthermore, incorporating competitive intelligence into product launch planning offers invaluable insights into regulatory responses, distributor challenges, and the influence of social media personalities. This enhances the efficacy of product introductions.
Effective competitive intelligence requires continual gathering, analysis, and evaluation of data to enhance the decision-making process. Businesses can also gather competitive intelligence for their digital marketing efforts independently. For example, they can harness the power of their customers to gather valuable intelligence on their behalf. By monitoring customer comments on their social media pages, businesses can gain valuable insights into their customers' perceptions of their products compared to those offered by their competitors. Secondly, delving into competitor reviews provides invaluable feedback on both their products and those of their rivals. This offers insights into strengths and weaknesses. Thirdly, utilizing specialized tools designed for competitive analysis empowers businesses to track changes in their competitors' strategies and swiftly adapt as needed to maintain their competitive edge. Fourthly, examining competitors' websites yields comprehensive information on their offerings. This serves as a primary source for up-to-date intelligence. Lastly, leveraging search engine optimization (SEO) tools enables businesses to gauge the importance of specific keywords in driving their competitors' traffic and monitor fluctuations in their page rankings. This helps provide further strategic insights.
To ensure responsible and lawful conduct in the realm of competitive intelligence, analysts must refrain from unethical or illegal behaviors associated with the concept. If it is not handled properly, it leads to industrial espionage which carries heavy penalties. The competitive intelligence analysts should avoid unethical or illegal behaviors associated with the concept of competitive intelligence such as lying, theft, bribery, misrepresentation, or eavesdropping.

## Trademark Infringement

Trademark infringement is the unauthorized use of an identical or similar trademark or service mark that leads to confusion, mistake, or deception about the source of the product or service. Trademarks may include a business name, logo, domain name, or slogan. Trademark infringement can occur with both registered and unregistered trademarks because ownership of a trademark is established when an individual or business begins to use it for their goods or services. However, rights to unregistered trademarks are limited and only apply to the geographic area in which the goods or services are provided. To protect the source of goods or services from infringement nationwide, it is recommended to register a mark with the United States Patent and Trademark Office (USPTO).
The Lanham Act enacted in 1946 by Congress provides legal protection for both registered and unregistered marks. A registered mark establishes prima facie evidence of a valid mark and the ownership of the mark and grants the registrant exclusive rights to use the mark in relation to goods and services. For unregistered marks, which are also called common law marks, a party should demonstrate that the mark is actively used in commercial activity and is distinctive among United States consumers. Usually, trade and service marks infringement cases are held in federal courts.
Trademark and service mark infringement can be willful or innocent. Willful trade or service mark infringement is an act that is done intentionally in violation of the law. Innocent infringement occurs when someone engages in an infringing activity without knowing that this activity constitutes infringement or by mistake. Until 2020, the willfulness of the infringement had to be proven in order to recover financial damages for a trademark owner. On April 23, 2020, the Supreme Court ruled that a trademark owner can recover monetary relief without having to prove that the infringement was willful. Hence, remedies can now be awarded regardless of whether the infringement was willful or innocent. If trademark infringement has been proven by the trademark owner, he or she may be entitled to the following remedies:
* a court injunction requiring the infringer to stop using the alleged trademark;
* monetary relief, including the costs of the court action and the infringer’s profits;
* a court order requiring the destruction or forfeiture of infringing items.
Intellectual property is one of the most valuable assets of any business. Thus, preventing others from using the business’s trademarks should be taken seriously. One of the main steps in protecting a trademark is the active use of the mark in relation to the goods and services offered by the business. However, before using any trademark, one should do thorough research on whether other businesses are already using similar trademarks to avoid violating trademark law. Registering a trademark is another important step to protecting trademarks. Trademark registration with USPTO can preclude the use of the marks by others across the United States. Another benefit is that registration makes it easy for other entrepreneurs to find the trademark and avoid copying. It also provides protection against the importation of infringing products. Also, after registration, one has the right to use the Ⓡ symbol that can be used for marketing, which will warn infringers that intellectual property rights are taken seriously, and any violation may lead to legal consequences.

## Cybersquatting

Cybersquatting is the act of registering domain names with the intent of profiting from selling these domains that are similar to company names or famous trademarks. The term is an extension of the word “squatter” which is described as one that settles on property without right or title or payment of rent. It is also known as “domain squatting." Since the domain names can only be registered once, it is unethical for a person to benefit from obtaining domain names similar to the company name or trademark because it forces the company to either pay or litigate. Congress has defined “domain name” as “any alphanumeric designation that is registered with or assigned by any domain name registrar, domain name registry, or other domain name registration authority as part of an electronic address on the Internet. For example, an individual is cybersquatting if he/she registers a domain name called XYZ.com, XYZ.org, or XYZ.info, in hopes to gain profits from selling that domain to XYZ company. The Anticybersquatting Consumer Protection Act (ACPA), enacted in 1999, is a law that has been endorsed by Internet Corporation of Assigned Names and Numbers (ICANN) to defend against any illegal cybersquatting action or actions. This act is an expansion of the Lanham (Trademark) Act, and is intended to provide protection against cybersquatting for individuals as well as owners of distinct trademarked names. The challenge that the law has faced in recent years is how to foster the development of intellectual property on the internet while preventing its unauthorized exploitation. If you believe someone is cybersquatting on your trademark, you can file a Uniform Domain-Name Dispute-Resolution Policy (UDRP) complaint to have the domain name transferred to you.
The practice of cybersquatting can be carried out in a number of different ways. Methods include the registration of another’s mark as a domain name, the registration of a misspelling of another’s mark, the registration of another’s mark for use with a suffix other than “.com,” the registration of another’s mark as part of a domain name, the registration of another individual’s name as a domain name, the registration of the mark of a competitor, and the registration of the mark of an organization opposed by the registrant.
Cybersquatting harms businesses and consumers alike. It diverts traffic away from legitimate websites and can lead to confusion and even scams. By registering these domain names, cybersquatters prevent legitimate trademark owners from establishing a strong online presence. Pursuing action against cybersquatters can prove to be difficult. Most concerning, once on notice of an objection to the registration or use of a domain name, sophisticated cybersquatters often transfer ownership quickly in a practice known as “cyber-flying”. This rapid transfer of ownership creates a moving target for the trademark holder. They are then forced to continually update their identification and service efforts, often encountering yet another transfer upon locating the current registrant. Cybersquatting poses a significant challenge for trademark holders, hindering their online presence while the offenders bank off of it. There is legal recourse, but it is often an arduous process that doesn’t guarantee success.

## Copyright Infringement

Copyright is a type of intellectual property that protects original works of authorship as soon as an author fixes the work in a tangible form of expression. Although many believe that copyright law in the United States applies only to written or spoken pieces of work such as books or songs, it actually covers a wide range of original work which include paintings, movies, and even computer software. Copyright infringement occurs when a copyrighted work is reproduced, distributed, performed, publicly displayed, or made into a derivative work without the permission of the copyright owner. Copyright laws in the United States are complex and often leave confusion on what is illegal and what isn’t. Current copyright legislation includes a portion called fair-use. Fair use permits a party to use a copyrighted work without the copyright owner’s permission for purposes such as criticism, comment, news reporting, teaching, scholarship, or research. These purposes only illustrate what might be considered as fair use and are not examples of what will always be considered as fair use. In fact, there are no bright-line rules in determining fair use, since it is determined on a case-by-case basis. To put copyright laws into a simpler manner isn’t easy; the fact is that copyright laws in the United States, and in other devolved countries around the world, are everything but simple.
When copyright law was first introduced in the United States in the late 1700’s, it only applied to written or spoken work that could be seen or heard by humans. As technology expanded into more modern and complex forms, the law did too. Technology has only expanded copyright issues in many industries including music and movies. These industries rely on individual sales of their products, but with new technology comes ways that people copy and distribute copyrighted work with no revenue being sent to the original artists. Although copyright laws now include protection for computer programs, there still remains questions on what classifies as copyright infringement. In 2010, Oracle filed a lawsuit against Google for copyright infringement for the use of an application programming interface (API) that Oracle held the copyright for. Google argued that its use was legal under fair-use and that they didn’t violate any copyright laws by their use of the API. The case went on for over a decade and for many different phases. Initially, Oracle successfully petitioned the court that API’s were copyrightable, but that was only the beginning to a lengthy battle that saw its way through several different courts. The end result was the Supreme court's ruling that Google did not violate any copyright infringement laws under the fair-use portions. Fair-use portions of the law require courts to consider factors when determining a case. The factors include the purpose and nature of the copyrighted work, the amount and substantiality of the portion used in relation to the copyrighted work as a whole, and the effect of the use. The court determined that Google’s use of Oracle’s API was not significant enough in the Android operating system to violate copyright laws. Because copyright laws are never up-to-date with technology, individual court cases and precedents in the judicial system have become one of the only ways to update the laws.
Many steps have been taken to combat copyright infringement in technology. The Digital Millennium Copyright Act (DMCA) was one of the biggest changes to copyright law in United States history. One major portion of the DMCA is requiring network service providers to take action against users of their networks who have violated copyright legislation. Service providers must (1) adopt a policy of terminating the accounts of repeat infringers, and (2) accommodate and not interfere with "standard technical measures" (defined as standardized measures used by copyright owners to identify or protect copyrighted works). Most colleges and universities are considered to be service providers due to their complex computer network that they operate to all of the students and faculty members. Colleges and universities must ensure that their networks aren’t being used for illegal downloading and distribution of copyrighted material. Older methods at combating digital copyright infringement includes technology companies posting virus-filled files on sites that promote copyright infringement in hopes of deterring users from using the sharing platforms. Although laws and court rulings have begun to expand to include that digital content is copyrightable, thus protecting the creators, the laws still leave gray areas that make it hard to determine cases of copyright infringement.

## Software Piracy

The United States Department of Energy defines computer software piracy as: "The use and or distribution of copyrighted computer software in violation of the copyright laws or applicable license restrictions."The nature of software piracy and the proliferation of copyrighted or patented material makes it of particular concern to intellectual property holders. Pirated Computer Software/Media come in many forms and different names:
* Cracked Software: Software that has been modified to remove or bypass copyright protection features, such as digital rights management (DRM), activation checks, or trial period limitations.
* Unauthorized/Unlicensed Software: Software that is used without obtaining the proper licenses from the copyright holder, regardless of whether the software itself is a legitimate copy.
* Rip: This term is used to describe software (or media content) that has been "ripped" or copied from its original format, often reduced in size or modified in some way to make distribution easier.
* Torrented Software: Software that has been distributed via peer-to-peer (P2P) file sharing networks, particularly using the BitTorrent protocol, often without the copyright holder's permission. Piracy raises multiple legal and ethical issues; it violates John Locke's natural rights principle by allowing individuals to benefit from a developer's work without proper compensation. The Software Alliance (BSA) claims unlicensed software held a commercial value of 46.4 Billion U.S Dollars in 2018.

### Why people commit digital piracy

Studies show that there are many factors to why someone might or might not pirate content whether it be music, video, or software.

#### Social repercussions

    Some people are deterred from pirating content due to social ramifications. For example there can sometimes be a taboo around watching movies or playing games a friend pirated. This could cause negative social pressure around pirating, but on the flip side if you pirate a movie and get praise for it you are more likely to keep pirating.

#### Perceived risk and reward

    Arguably one of the largest factors of what drives people to pirate content is the perceived lack of risk and high reward. If someone were to pirate 100 movies that they otherwise would have had to buy for $20-$50 a piece to them they just saved $2000-$5000 that is a huge amount of reward especially if the risk is relatively low or not perceived at all. Many people who pirate media are also never punished and if they do it once, get away with it, and enjoy the results it can become a habit. It also however can work the opposite way and if someone sees it as a high risk low reward activity then they are less likely to engage in digital piracy.

#### Justice and fairness

    The last factor that leads to piracy is the person’s individual sense of justice and fairness. If someone is debating on pirating a movie or music and decides they like the artist enough to support them they are more likely to buy it, even if they pirate much of their content already. However if they see a movie studio as being huge and undeserving of more money they are more likely to pirate it if they have the means. This also contributes to a persons’ perceived risk and reward because if someone doesn’t respect their government or it is corrupt and they believe they shouldn’t have to follow the laws of that government they are again more likely to pirate media because it feels fair and just especially if there is no tangible harm done to another person.
* ↑ What is Plagiarism, Turnitin. Retrieved 24 April 2022
* ↑ Intellectual Property Law, Georgetown Law. Retrieved 22 April 2022
* 1 2 3 What is Plagiarism, UNSW Sydney. Retrieved 24 April 2022
* ↑ Plagiarism, Legal Information Institute. Retrieved 24 April 2022
* 1 2 3 Causes of Plagiarism, Kent State University. Retrieved 24 April 2022
* ↑ The Detection is in the Details, Turnitin. Retrieved 24 April 2022
* ↑ Definition of Reverse Engineering Merriam-Webster. Retrieved 24 April 2022
* ↑ Unlocking Consumer Choice and Wireless Competition Act, Legal Information Institute. Retrieved 24 April 2022
* ↑ Reverse Engineering Legal Information Institute. Retrieved 24 April 2022
* ↑ What is Reverse-Engineering? Tech Target. Retrieved 24 April 2022
* 1 2 Coders’ Rights Project Reverse Engineering FAQ Electronic Frontier Foundation. Retrieved 24 April 2022
* ↑ BOWERS HLB v. BAYSTATE TECHNOLOGIES INC FindLaw for Legal Professionals | Law & Legal Profession. Retrieved 24 April 2022
* ↑ George W. Reynolds : ETHICS IN INFORMATION TECHNOLOGY, Third Edition, 2010. http://mylibrary.carsu.edu.ph:8081/xmlui/bitstream/handle/123456789/180/Ethics%20in%20IT%20by%20Reynolds%203rd%20Ed%202010.pdf?sequence=1&isAllowed=y
* 1 2 3 LANHAM (TRADEMARK) ACT (15 U.S.C.) Bitlaw. Retrieved 24 April 2022.
* ↑ OpenSource.org. "The 3-Clause BSD License". Retrieved 24 April 2022.
* ↑ "The Basic principles of Open-source Software". WordPress Foundation. 2021-02-23. Retrieved 2024-04-18.
* ↑ "The GNU General Public License v3.0 - GNU Project - Free Software Foundation". www.gnu.org. Retrieved 2024-04-18.
* ↑ "The MIT License". Open Source Initiative. 2006-10-31. Retrieved 2024-04-18.
* ↑ https://www.apache.org/licenses/LICENSE-2.0
* 1 2 Patel, Mitesh. "Understanding and Complying with Open Source Software Licenses - An Intellectual Property Perspective". Retrieved 24 April 2022.
* ↑ "What is Competitive Intelligence: Basics". SendPulse. Retrieved 2024-04-23.
* 1 2 3 "Competitive Intelligence: What Is It and Why Is It Important?". Mailchimp. Retrieved 2024-04-23.
* ↑ George W. Reynolds : ETHICS IN INFORMATION TECHNOLOGY, Third Edition, 2010. http://mylibrary.carsu.edu.ph:8081/xmlui/bitstream/handle/123456789/180/Ethics%20in%20IT%20by%20Reynolds%203rd%20Ed%202010.pdf?sequence=1&isAllowed=y
* 1 2 About Trademark Infringement United States Patent and Trademark Office. Retrieved 24 April 2022.
* ↑ United States v. Wise Casetext. Retrieved 24 April 2022.
* ↑ ROMAG FASTENERS, INC. v. FOSSIL GROUP, INC. Supreme Court of the United States. Retrieved 24 April 2022.
* ↑ Justin Graham, Ashley Johnson, Emilio Mena, Neil Wolitzer : CYBERSQUATTING: THE LATEST CHALLENGE IN FEDERAL TRADEMARK PROTECTION, 2001 http://scholarship.law.duke.edu/cgi/viewcontent.cgi?article=1008&context=dltr
* 1 2 Lifshitz, Allon (2001). "Cybersquatting" (PDF). Harvard Journal on Legislation. 38 (2): 529 – via Journal on Legislation.
* ↑ George W. Reynolds : ETHICS IN INFORMATION TECHNOLOGY, Third Edition, 2010. http://mylibrary.carsu.edu.ph:8081/xmlui/bitstream/handle/123456789/180/Ethics%20in%20IT%20by%20Reynolds%203rd%20Ed%202010.pdf?sequence=1&isAllowed=y
* ↑ Deo, Sukrut; Deo, Sapna (April 2019). "Cybersquatting: Threat to Domain Name" (PDF). International Journal of Innovative Technology and Exploring Engineering. 8 (6S4): 1432.
* ↑ Arnot, Jordan (2014). "Navigating Cybersquatting Enforcement in the Expanding Interest". The John Marshall Review of Intellectual Property Law: 321 – via UIC Law Open Access Repository.
* 1 2 What is Copyright? U.S. Copyright Office. Retrieved 24 April 2022
* ↑ What is Fair Use? Copyright Alliance. Retrieved 24 April 2022
* ↑ Google LLC v. Oracle America, Inc. Supreme Court of the United States. Retrieved 24 April 2022
* ↑ Fair Use Columbia University Libraries. Retrieved 24 April 2022
* ↑ What Colleges and Universities Need to Know about the Digital Millennium Copyright Act Cause/Effect. Retrieved 24 April 2022
* ↑ Johnson, Diane. "Computer Software Piracy — DOE Directives, Guidance, and Delegations". www.directives.doe.gov. Retrieved 2024-04-21.
* ↑ Goode, Sigi; Cruise, Sam (2006-05-01). "What Motivates Software Crackers?". Journal of Business Ethics. 65 (2): 173–201. doi:10.1007/s10551-005-4709-9. ISSN 1573-0697.
* ↑ Bailey, Charles D.; Soileau, Jared S. (2011-03). "Q-analytics: An ethics case on unlicensed software usage". Journal of Accounting Education. 29 (1): 50–59. doi:10.1016/j.jaccedu.2011.06.001. ISSN 0748-5751. {{cite journal}}: Check date values in: |date= (help)
* ↑ "What Is BitTorrent and Is It Safe?". www.kaspersky.com. 2023-12-01. Retrieved 2024-04-21.
* ↑ "State of nature".
* ↑ "Home - 2018 BSA Global Software Survey". BSA | 2018 Global Software Survey. Retrieved 2024-04-21.
* 1 2 3 4 5 Yoon, Cheolho (2011-05-01). "Theory of Planned Behavior and Ethics Theory in Digital Piracy: An Integrated Model". Journal of Business Ethics. 100 (3): 405–417. doi:10.1007/s10551-010-0687-7. ISSN 1573-0697.