Talk:Clean room design

message: I removed this from the article:
: Another example of this technique is for designing the structure and operation of companies which have agreed to merge. In April 2005, SBC Communications and AT&T announced that independent business consultants were using clean room design techniques to develop recommendations for the structure and operations of their upcoming newly merged company. The work was kept secret until the companies closed on the merger deal; thereafter the results were presented to upper management. This approach allowed the companies to adhere to business laws (specifically antitrust legislation) while they were still competitors, but gave the newly merged company a head start in its structure and operations, when all legal rules have been satisfied for the merger.
While this is really interesting, I don't actually think it's the same thing at all.  It describes a clean room in the sense that no information is allowed out; as distinct from clean room design, where no information (except the sanitised spec) is allowed in.  There's no suggestion in the above paragraph that what information came in was in any way an issue with the consultants' recommendations; which seems to me to remove any but the most superficial resemblance to the sort of clean room design that this article describes.
If someone can explain why I'm wrong, I'm happy to hear it.... TSP 00:55, 14 August 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Company example 

message: My dad worked for Arab British Dynamics in Egypt in the early 80s, a subsidiary of BAe (now BAE Systems). We commonly picked up Russian missiles for reverse engineering, while theoreticlly developing Swingfire. I am not sure this would come under the clean-room design criteria, though there was (natch) no involvement from others. It may also be covered by the 30-year rule, and I would not be able to provide references. Is there any worth to add it?
SimonTrew (talk) 13:37, 22 February 2009 (UTC)
replies: text: Not really admissible, I'm afraid.  Things can't go on to Wikipedia without some form of previously published source (see Wikipedia:Verifiability), especially potentially controversial things like this.  In this case, it might even be covered under official secrets legislation, making it illegal to publish in any case. TSP (talk) 14:35, 22 February 2009 (UTC)
thread_title:  ABD (this is hearsay) 

message: I thought AMD reverse engineering Intel stuff was supposed to be an important example of this technique.  I thought it was important for setting court precedence as well.  Perhaps someone knows something more about this?--Cosmicosmo (talk) 11:18, 29 October 2009 (UTC)
thread_title:  AMD 

message: The article in Finnish Wikipedia is about a coding technique called cleanroom to reduce amount of bugs in code, not to avoid copyright infringement.  — Preceding unsigned comment added by 130.188.115.109 (talk) 09:16, 15 November 2013 (UTC)
thread_title:  Wrong link to Finnish wikipedia  

message: We need a citation for that, particularly because what I found were sources suggesting otherwise: : “It is rumored that Columbia got in trouble with IBM for cloning the PC, and it was this trouble that caused upstart Compaq to make sure they had a complete "clean room" reverse engineering of the IBM so their ROM would stand up to a legal fight.” Someone not using his real name (talk) 23:27, 19 February 2014 (UTC)
thread_title:  Columbia and clean room 

message: The Java programming language was proprietary at the outset (indeed I attended one of the launch events).  And was, as I understand it, subject to a clean room implementation.  Some background: .  Perhaps this example could be researched and included as appropriate?  RobbieIanMorrison (talk) 09:55, 13 September 2023 (UTC)
thread_title:  Java programming language as an example