I didn't think reverse engineering itself was a violation of a patent? The entire point of a patent is the public disclosure of the mechanism of an invention for the exclusive right to market that invention. Therefore arguing that reverse engineering is a violation of a patent is definitionally incorrect. They should be arguing it's a violation of trade secrets. Of course, they'd lose on that argument too because clean room reverse engineering of a trade secret is fine because you definitionally don't have a patent on it! That's the patent vs trade secret tradeoff!

▲

Palomides 3 hours ago | parent | next [-]

no, a patent is exclusive right to implement, you can't get around it by reverse engineering

the tradeoff is that it becomes free eventually, unlike trade secrets

▲

xxpor 3 hours ago | parent | next [-]

Yes, but they're arguing in the letter that the work is _also_ disclosing information that would allow their competitors to know how DisplayLink works. You can't have it both ways.

▲

kube-system 2 hours ago | parent | next [-]

Yeah, that statement clearly is making IP claims beyond patent infringement, they just didn't elaborate. They didn't say it's patent infringement because of that.

▲

zarzavat an hour ago | parent [-]

Merely reverse engineering for interoperability is not a violation of any type of IP in the US.

	▲	kube-system an hour ago \| parent [-]
		1. Reverse engineering for interoperability gives you a defense for copyright and trade secret claims in the US. It provides zero protection from patent claims. "reverse engineering a patent" doesn't even make any sense. Patents are public, there's nothing to reverse engineer. You could "reverse engineer a specfiic implementation of a patent", but the only thing you'd be accomplishing is just avoiding infringing on the parts of the implementation that are subject to copyright or trade secret protections. You'd still be violating the patent. 2. I'm not saying their arguments are valid. It's a demand letter with multiple claims. There's many reasons it might be an invalid argument but listing more than one grievance and/or not explaining them in detail are not some of those reasons.

▲

ssl-3 2 hours ago | parent | prev [-]

A thing can be encumbered by both patents and trade secrets, can it not?

▲

sysguest 2 hours ago | parent [-]

well technically, yes and no

if I patent a microwave and specify exactly how it works, that part can't be trade secret

BUT if my trade secret is on using ruby diamond for deluxe premium microwave lazor THAT isn't specified on the patent, well that be a trade secret

but trade secret CAN ONLY BE PUNISHED IF someone insider leaks the info -- not much can be done if some junk collector finds out about the ruby stuff

	▲	ssl-3 2 hours ago \| parent [-]
		Right. But lawyers are prone to using scary phrasing, even if that phrasing has no bite, and are free to write strongly-worded letters. "I see that you've been publishing the privately-held, trade secret tomato processing technique I developed -- on the Internet! Now, tomato processors everywhere can see it! I'm really pissed! I demand that you stop doing this immediately! In fact, if you want a full enumeration of whar I really think about the terrible things you're doing, then I further demand that you pay me $25,000 for that effort!" ...it's got no bite, but it's a letter. It can be drafted and sent. (It can also be ignored upon receipt.)

▲

skygazer 2 hours ago | parent | prev | next [-]

Is writting software "implementing," or is compiling it and releasing binaries (for free,) or just profiting from the release, from the perspective of patent law? Isn't describing how something works first ammendment territory, even if the speech is compilable?

	▲	kube-system 43 minutes ago \| parent [-]
		There is no "fair-use", non-commercial, or even personal-use exception to patent law. Code is speech, but the 1st amendment has recognized exceptions for IP.

▲

interestica 2 hours ago | parent | prev | next [-]

You can get around it by reverse engineering it as long as what's sold doesn't violate that patent. Many companies have had to reverse engineer an existing patent to figure out what they can do instead.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Design_around

> Design-arounds are considered to be one of the benefits of patent law. By providing monopoly rights to inventors in exchange for disclosing how to make and use their inventions, others are given both the information and incentive to invent competitive alternatives that design around the original patent. In the field of vaccines, for example, design-arounds are considered fairly easy. It is often possible to use the original patent as a guide for developing an alternative that does not infringe the original patent.

▲

arghwhat an hour ago | parent | prev [-]

To be clear, a patent is an exclusive right to the specific functional invention, and if that invention happens to cover the one and only way to talk to the device, then it'll be hard to make a driver. In many cases you'll be able to make one for yourself due to some funny-business around patent exhaustion.

However, there is no universe where they can hold a valid patent that would encumber a driver for a regular USB display device. What they then might try to do is invoke DMCA, due to the device having DRM responsibilities (HDCP).

If they get trusted HDCP treatment from media players on some platforms, they might fight tooth and nail to not be broken open in public as that might end up with them losing trust from content providers...

Or maybe they're just assholes with no real rhyme or reason, who knows.

▲

vlovich123 3 hours ago | parent | prev [-]

Umm... what? Implementing the things described in a patent is literally a patent violation regardless of how you go about it. Reverse engineering only gets a pass for trade secrets. As you said, a patent literally describes how to do the thing.