Making reverse engineered Altium designs public - Page 1
Forum section: electronics / general

author: eecook
author_rank: Regular Contributor
timestamp: May 26, 2018, 01:24:12 am
content: Hi All,So, my friend has reverse engineered this comercial board from schematics down to the layout. He had a blast during the experience and would like to start doing it regularly and post the designs for everybody to download.He is worried about the legal aspect, basically getting sued.Is there any way to know which product/s is unlikely to generate legal problems?Thanks,Simon.

author: TiN
author_rank: Super Contributor
timestamp: May 26, 2018, 02:36:08 am
content: Obsolete, out of support products (esp when original manufacturer gone) may be easier to get away with , than modern current tech.But correct answer is always "it depends".

author: janekm
author_rank: Unknown
timestamp: May 26, 2018, 04:11:49 am
content: This may actually fall into the category of "it's no fun getting sued for doing something legal".Reproducing a circuit schematic from scratch has been found to not be covered by copyright:https://www.lexology.com/library/detail.aspx?g=ecbb24af-4a0a-4971-9022-2edfeac253ebDoesn't stop a large company's legal team suing you vexatiously if they really don't like you doing it.

author: hans
author_rank: Super Contributor
timestamp: May 26, 2018, 06:26:22 am
content: I think this is the sort of thing that no company admit they do, every engineer at a company admit they do (in person that is), but the real details stays behind closed doors because of legal consequences.For sure it sounds like a blast to do, but I don't think it's easy to go public with the work. Unless you think your legal firing power is more than that of a small company even.

author: TerraHertz
author_rank: Super Contributor
timestamp: May 28, 2018, 02:23:50 am
content: Quote from: eecook on May 26, 2018, 01:24:12 amWould 'your friend' like to talk about the methods used to reverse engineer boards?It's a topic I find quite interesting, since I do it now and then too.Hard enough just with single layer PCBs. Pic is an example, with 'done' markings on traces and components, using photoshop. The schematics are still messy hand-drawn first rough version, not tidied up at all. It's an LCD screen backlight power supply. Not of much interest to anyone, I think.Two layer PCBs are OK too, though usually it's worthwhile removing large components during the process. I take photos of both sides, overlay and align in photoshop using partial transparency, and create more layers for working annotations.Boards with internal layers used only for power and ground, are still not too hard.Boards with traces on multiple internal layers - I don't have a practical method.Why don't you post an example here?

author: NiHaoMike
author_rank: Super Contributor
timestamp: May 28, 2018, 03:50:29 am
content: I remember reading that it's possible to find reverse engineered schematics of iPhones and a few other very popular consumer products that commonly show up in repair shops. Perhaps the key is to make everything completely anonymous when releasing it? And do it from a public hotspot and/or VPN just to be safe?

author: ebastler
author_rank: Super Contributor
timestamp: May 28, 2018, 05:07:58 am
content: Quote from: janekm on May 26, 2018, 04:11:49 amThanks for the link. The court ruling cited there speaks about both, circuit diagrams and layouts.Copyrightdoes cover the graphical rendition of circuit diagrams and PCB layouts.A reverse-engineeredcircuit diagramwill most likely look very different from the original. (You probably haven't even seen the original one -- otherwise, what would there be to "reverse engineer"?) No problems with copyright in that case.For the reverse-engineeredPCB layout, one may be tempted to use the same component and trace arrangement as for the original. (Maybe even based on scanning or X-raying an original PCB.) If one does that and publishes the result, it would most likely be a copyright violation. In the court case cited above, the court's reason fornotfinding a copyright violation was that the PCB layout was quite different from the original in several aspects; and that is the approach I would recommend for reverse-engineering.In addition, there is the matter ofpatents. Aspects of the board you reverse-engineer may be covered by patents, and it may be difficult to find out whether that is the case. But as long as you don't start making or distributing a product based on the design, you would not violate any patent. When you publish the reverse-engineered design, it is probably a good idea to point out the possibility of 3rd party patents in a disclaimer, so the publication cannot be seen as "inducing infringement" by others. This all assumes that the reverse-engineering is done to satisfy technical curiosity or learn about the solution, rather than wanting to copy it for commercial gain.EDIT: The OP does not mention anyfirmware. If firmware were part of the original design, that poses the biggest obstacles to publishing a reverse-engineered design. Binary copies of programs are universally considered to be protected by copyright, to my knowledge. Publishing a disassembled version should still violate the copyright, if it can be used to assemble an identical binary. I don't see a legally "safe" way to publish the firmware as part of a reverse-engineering project.

author: donotdespisethesnake
author_rank: Super Contributor
timestamp: May 28, 2018, 06:25:33 am
content: Quote from: ebastler on May 28, 2018, 05:07:58 amNo it doesn't, that's a common myth. Generally speaking, copyright does not apply to "useful articles" such as engineering drawings, although there are specific exceptions, e.g. 'vessel hull designs'.

author: ebastler
author_rank: Super Contributor
timestamp: May 28, 2018, 06:37:54 am
content: Quote from: donotdespisethesnake on May 28, 2018, 06:25:33 amWould you have a reference for that? I don't think it is generally correct.For "trivial" diagrams, or if there is essentially "only one way" to render something, copyright protection may indeed not apply. But if creativity went into the creation of a diagram or layout, e.g. to make the functionality very clear by chosing a clever arrangement of components on the schematic, copyright does protect the rendition IMO.I can't find a ruling specific to circuit diagrams right now, but this article summarizes the arguments from a related court case:http://seattlecopyrightwatch.com/copyright/admitted_copier_of_diagram_on_the_hook_for_copyright_infringement/EDIT: Found this blog post by a law firm. They make a pretty sweeping statement along the lines of "program code, PCB layouts, and schematics are all protected by copyright", without mentioning any limitations. That's probably over-simplifying matters, and they may be trying to drum up some business with this position... But I am pretty sure that the simple "not applicable at all" isn't correct either.http://garson-law.com/ask-dr-copyright-protect-your-software-circuit-boards-and-mask-works/

author: David Chamberlain
author_rank: Frequent Contributor
timestamp: May 28, 2018, 08:54:17 am
content: I think it really depends on the product. If it's an iPhone then you can bet you will be sued to an inch of your life. On the other hand if it's a reference design from a chip maker then that gets a lot more blurry. I think it's the latter because you mentioned 'Altium designs' but I could be wrong.If it is a reference design then consider that the chip manufacture publishes those designed to aid engineers in how to layout and use said chips. For example SMP products datasheets usually have a recommended PCB layout and unless you know more then the people who designed the chip (I'm not one of them) you just directly copy the layout. The chip manufacture of course OWNS the copyright to that layout but they are not making bucks if they sue every tom&dick for directly copying it.The twist comes though when you then on-sell and market your product with that design. Consider the chip manufactures design is meant to put the component in the best possible light to entice engineers to purchase it. If you use their design and do something counter to that idea then you may expect some back lash.So a given design is either Intellectual Property (in the case of the iPhone) and worth something to a company or a means to promote a products that the design is based around.

author: ebastler
author_rank: Super Contributor
timestamp: May 28, 2018, 09:58:15 am
content: Quote from: David Chamberlain on May 28, 2018, 08:54:17 amThat's a step back from the more differentiated discussion we had started above. "Intellectual property" is a general term, which encompasses both, copyright and patent protection.Many electronics designs (certainly including the iPhone) will be covered bypatents. But that does not make it illegal to publish details about the designs. Only using the designs commercially, to offer products or processes, will be limited. In fact, the whole patent system is built around the concept that new ideas should be documented and published (to advance technical progress), but that the inventors should be given a time-limited protection in using them commercially (to reward innovation).Schematics and/or layouts also may or may not be covered bycopyright-- in my understanding, depending on how much "creativity" went into them, beyond implementing pure technical requirements. In that case, publishing the original schematics and layouts or reproductions thereof may constitute a copyright violation, even if one does not build and commercialize the actual product. But if you redraw the schematics and layout with a different arrangement of components and connections/traces, you will not violate the copyright. Copyright only protects the "artistic" rendition of the design, not its functionality.

author: David Chamberlain
author_rank: Frequent Contributor
timestamp: May 28, 2018, 10:32:41 am
content: Actually I'm going to argue that Intellectual Property is less about Copyright and Patents (that I never mentioned) and more about the degree of financial heft an angry corporation may put towards OP's 'friend' - no really it's not OP who did the copying for sureCopyright is a given right to the original creator of a work and does not need to be applied for. It is one of those special natural justice things like freedom of religion (god help us). To prove in court that I was the copyright owner of a work means to provide evidence that it was not so derivative to be construed as a breach of another copyright. That is to say I did not just rip of someone else work and call it my own. How much evidence I need to prove that depends on the drunkenness of the presiding judge and phone-it-in attitude of the apposing council.A Registered Design Mark is a way to put a time stamp on the creation of a design to aid in the resolution of any future copyright disputes. But however you cut it a copyright is week protection in electronics considering how many ways a PCB can be set out.A patent, seeing as you asked, is not something you can apply to a PCB layout due to it not being definable as a Patentable invention, further details of that are here.https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/PatentabilitySo the natural question is how could Apple get a patent on a PCB layout? Well that is a whole different kettle of fish that in some ways paints the picture of a corrupt US patent system.

author: ebastler
author_rank: Super Contributor
timestamp: May 28, 2018, 10:44:33 am
content: David -- not sure whether we keep saying the same things here, just stressing different points or driving for clarification of different aspects? My main reason for arguing is that I want to answer the OP's question -- what can 'his friend' safely publish and what not?Quote from: David Chamberlain on May 28, 2018, 10:32:41 amTwo comments here:(a) I am pretty sure that specific aspects of a PCB layout are patentable -- where the layout itself implements certain functionality. Think of various antenna geometries realized via PCB traces, for example.(b) In the more typical case where the graphical layout is not patentable, the circuit functionality it implements may well be patented. So if you clone the PCB, populate and sell it, you are violating the patent.

author: David Chamberlain
author_rank: Frequent Contributor
timestamp: May 28, 2018, 11:01:08 am
content: Well OP has really not provided any detailed information that could be used to answer OP's question so at this point it's all just a bit of fun and a whole lot of speculation. I'll admit I usually read and respond to the OP's question without trawling through the evolving thread so it's possible I have missed the direction it has gone in.My aim was just to point out the basics of product protection as I understand it and to point out that while we all like to think the rules are solid, it really comes down to who your up against.So to your points a) Patents (should) provide protection to processes not designs, so if some unique process is developed around say putting copper on an FR4 for 5G applications and was novel then perhaps yes. b) again patents may very well apply to the individual components but their placement in a wider functional circuit I would say no.As I mentioned my idea of what a patent is is completely idealistic and the true Patent system seems to no longer have any resemblance to it's original intent.So my actual advice to OP, just make the thing and wait for the cease and desist letter.

author: amyk
author_rank: Super Contributor
timestamp: May 28, 2018, 11:48:32 am
content: Release anonymously and preferably host in a country/service that doesn't care about legal threats.

author: Richard Crowley
author_rank: Super Contributor
timestamp: May 28, 2018, 12:03:19 pm
content: Hasn't this general topic been discussed several times by Louis Rossman? Didn't Apple use their lawyers to try to stop him from showing schematic diagrams in his videos because Apple deemed them legally "protected" (by some undisclosed theory)? I don't think the schematics were actually Apple documents, but rather reverse-engineered documents created by 3rd party sources. Rossman stood up to them and they apparently backed down because it appears to be back to business as usual on his channel.

author: TerraHertz
author_rank: Super Contributor
timestamp: May 28, 2018, 12:38:17 pm
content: Quote from: David Chamberlain on May 28, 2018, 11:01:08 amHe didn't say anything about making physical copies. Just releasing schematics and board layouts. Presumably for fun, and to enable servicing by owners of the equipment.The kind of information that honest, moral companies like HP and Tektronix used to publish by default, in those beautiful and very detailed service manuals. Before the lawyer c*nts took over from the worthy original company founders. Who were true Engineers, trying to better humankind's lot.

author: Richard Crowley
author_rank: Super Contributor
timestamp: May 28, 2018, 01:02:17 pm
content: Back perhaps before many here were born, we had "Sams Photofact" documents. They were quite comprehensive component-level service manuals for a wide variety of consumer gear. Back from the days of firebottle, point-to-point wiring. I believe they were reverse-engineered, independent 3rd party documentation, without support or participation from the manufacturer. Apparently they are still going at:https://www.samswebsite.com/

author: ebastler
author_rank: Super Contributor
timestamp: May 28, 2018, 02:37:57 pm
content: Quote from: David Chamberlain on May 28, 2018, 11:01:08 amYes, you might have missed something. The points I tried to make repeatedly, as advice to the OP, are:Don't publish direct copies of the schematics or layout, draw your own versions and make them somewhat different from the originals (graphically, not functionally). That avoids copyright infringement.Don't sell products or processes, only publish design information. That avoids patent infringement.If he stays within the above constraints, the OP (or his friend...) should be fine. The only other pitfall I can think of is if the original information was obtained under a confidentiality agreement or other contract that explicitly limits what one can do with it.

author: eecook
author_rank: Regular Contributor
timestamp: May 29, 2018, 02:51:51 am
content: It's roughly the same method I use. For 4 layers I just sand paper the pcb (with water)...if you are gentle and wait long enough, the inner layers will reveal themselves.

author: eecook
author_rank: Regular Contributor
timestamp: May 29, 2018, 02:56:27 am
content: Quote from: ebastler on May 28, 2018, 05:07:58 amIndeed, I am not interested in firmware.

author: eecook
author_rank: Regular Contributor
timestamp: May 29, 2018, 02:58:55 am
content: Quote from: ebastler on May 28, 2018, 05:07:58 amI like that, good idea.

author: eecook
author_rank: Regular Contributor
timestamp: May 29, 2018, 03:14:10 am
content: I am basically curious (it's me, I was just kidding) as to how the community would react if all of a sudden, there's a proper schematic and layout files for some popular product. Would people download it? Would they even care at all? Would they ask for more? Would they be angry at me using some convoluted ethical argument? Who would be interested?, EtcBut I am not going to move forward if there's trouble lying ahead. Just wanted have a better understanding of the situation. Maybe it would be less risky and equally useful to release only schematics.

author: julianhigginson
author_rank: Frequent Contributor
timestamp: May 29, 2018, 10:55:52 am
content: Sounds really cool!I'd be keen to see schematics of anything interesting that you share.

author: eecook
author_rank: Regular Contributor
timestamp: May 29, 2018, 07:23:42 pm
content: Here's a sample view of a reverse engineering job I did where all 4 layers where revealed, aligned and fake coloured using GIMP.

author: eecook
author_rank: Regular Contributor
timestamp: May 29, 2018, 07:29:49 pm
content: Quote from: julianhigginson on May 29, 2018, 10:55:52 amWould you like to see anything in particular?

author: ebastler
author_rank: Super Contributor
timestamp: May 29, 2018, 08:34:52 pm
content: Quote from: eecook on May 29, 2018, 07:23:42 pmThat's pretty cool indeed. But it is also the one thing about reverse engineering that could get you in trouble if published, in my opinion.Copies of original schematics or PCB layouts, provided that they are not fully obvious/utilitarian in nature, are protected by copyright IMO. And that protects the "artwork" itself, not the functionality or the product. So publishing the artwork already constitutes a copyright violation, even without anybody copying the product.I would think that reverse-engineered (i.e. redrawn) schematics are actually the more valuable information for the technically curious. Add placement annotations, and they are very helpful for debugging too. Uncovering the PCB layout is just your means to an end, namely to reconstructing the schematic; if I were you, I would not publish the layout.

author: eecook
author_rank: Regular Contributor
timestamp: May 29, 2018, 08:44:51 pm
content: Quote from: ebastler on May 29, 2018, 08:34:52 pmLooks cool right???Absolutely, I think that is the smartest way to go about it. Also I was thinking that maybe posting a video describing the method (using an open source board) would be useful. It is actually not hard, just time consuming.

author: ebastler
author_rank: Super Contributor
timestamp: May 29, 2018, 08:51:57 pm
content: Quote from: eecook on May 29, 2018, 08:44:51 pmThat would be perfect!That's actually the most intriguing thing about the reverse-engineered layouts: "How the heck did he get those?!" I will definitely watch your video!

author: TerraHertz
author_rank: Super Contributor
timestamp: May 30, 2018, 02:57:26 am
content: Quote from: eecook on May 29, 2018, 02:51:51 amOuch. Sounds really painful, and also destroys the device. All the reversing I've done (in the last few years) was on devices I wanted to repair or mod, so destruction wasn't an option. And I have another one coming up (a big UPS) where I'll need to reverse engineer a couple of pretty large PCBs, along with the firmware. (Fingers crossed the binaries can be extracted.) That too is a 'no spares available' case, where I can't destroy the boards.By the way, you always have the option to upload the files anonymously to some fileshare service (eg Mega) then 'discover them' and post the links to a discussion thread. But this way you don't get kudos points.Something I would like to see, is reverse engineering docs for a variety of tablet computing devices. Of a vintage that is fairly recent (so decent graphics and CPU power) but old enough to be cheaply available second hand (or free.)The aim being to jailbreak them from the original manufacturer's OS and end up with some Linux variant running only an open source cut-down browser. Allowing use as a general networkable display device via html5/Canvas/JS, touchscreen, etc.Many tablet devices are really nice hardware designs, spoiled by stupid OS & apps gimmickry and corporate image bullshit. Would be great to be able to repurpose them as dedicated control panel things.Or maybe someone has already done that?

author: Rerouter
author_rank: Super Contributor
timestamp: May 31, 2018, 11:01:10 am
content: I again use Gimp for reverse engineering, but I use the path tool to draw out all the connections as I go having each layer on a new path layer with a different color, I can then paint out the paths on verification layers, and change them to black as I draw them out on the layout programPersonally, Stuff i reverse engineer, I generally am modernizing things at the same time, so most of the time it doesnt end up being the same device, rather work on the same principles.

author: julianhigginson
author_rank: Frequent Contributor
timestamp: May 31, 2018, 02:14:37 pm
content: Quote from: eecook on May 29, 2018, 07:29:49 pmnot in particular, but I'd always be keen to have a stickybeak at the schematics and layout (though you probably can't share the layout without being sued) of anything high volume... bonus points if it's in Altium, because that's what I use.. :-)Just looking at things and seeing other people's approaches is eye opening.

author: EEVblog
author_rank: Unknown
timestamp: May 31, 2018, 02:27:25 pm
content: Quote from: janekm on May 26, 2018, 04:11:49 amCorrect.Reverse engineering a schematic is going to lead to an entirely different (albeit electrically equivalent) to the original schematic. You can't copyright electrical connectivity, that falls under the area of patents if anything.PCB foil patterns on the other hand, by necessity, would be a direct reproduction, and that's murky.But as always, you can get sued at any time for anything. Doesn't mean they'll win, but they can bankrupt you trying.

author: amyk
author_rank: Super Contributor
timestamp: June 01, 2018, 01:55:11 am
content: Quote from: TerraHertz on May 30, 2018, 02:57:26 amFrom what I've gathered about the Chinese companies who can reverse-engineer PCBs non-destructively (although they need to remove all the components first to do it), they use a machine with a similar principle to the "bed of nails" testers --- a camera detects where the pads are, and two probes fly around measuring continuity to generate a netlist.I suppose something similar could be done manually without removing components, by using an extremely low AC voltage (so as not to activate semiconductor junctions) and measuring resistance.

author: TerraHertz
author_rank: Super Contributor
timestamp: June 01, 2018, 05:02:33 am
content: Quote from: amyk on June 01, 2018, 01:55:11 amManual 'all to all' continuity testing is infeasible, because it's not humanly possible to do something so repetitive but flawlessly. So an error probability would be present, meaning you couldn't trust the schematic to be complete. Which rather invalidates the whole process.An automated process is a different matter though, and a valid approach. Just too high an entry barrier for hobbyists.Also, without removing components there could still be problems. Some components have very low resistances, similar to long thin tracks. Fuses, current sense resistors, polyfuses, relays, etc.I like the sanding-down idea. Trying to think of a suitable target board to try it, but so far, nothing. Something I have or can cheaply obtain multiple identical units of, that I'd like schematics for - enough to justify the effort...

author: David Chamberlain
author_rank: Frequent Contributor
timestamp: June 01, 2018, 06:38:40 am
content: Frightening machine warninghttps://youtu.be/fjmjYVNuLEE

author: TerraHertz
author_rank: Super Contributor
timestamp: June 02, 2018, 05:25:51 am
content: That thing would give spiders nightmares.Really interesting that the test includes a mini-jackhammer, hammering BGA chips. Presumably to try to reveal any intermittent solder ball joints.

author: julianhigginson
author_rank: Frequent Contributor
timestamp: June 02, 2018, 08:44:50 am
content: I thought that might be some kind of field sensing probe?