But this is common only for the software that has great value or may be a risk if delivered to terrorists or countries with evil government. In such cases, I agree, some control over the copies is necessary. It takes more people, more expenses and result in the price of the product. Even this has a good intention, because you have to have the way to protect someone's property from being copied, but the words are completely incorrect. While reverse engineering does mean the people analyzing the structure of a processor, trying to make a compatible copy, it also means Samba, Executor, and lots of other things.
Reverse engineering is a way to get things done.
It will still be possible to mix Win and Mac because two companies will license technology to each other, but Linux boxes would be simply cut-off from Windows networks. Reverse engineering is just too wide phrase to be used just like that, or it may backfire in helping big companies spreading information monopoly very soon after the proposal becomes a law. Not only vendors take no responsibility for bugs in the software, now they may be able to disclaim everything. No matter if it counts for software manufacturer, reseller or dealer, it is still shrinking your rights as a customer, human being and intelligent creature. It sounds like software manufacturer is not responsible for anything, but it will be able to get control over your data.