Catch up on stories from the past week (and beyond) at the Slashdot story archive

 


Forgot your password?
Close
typodupeerror
×
News

Are 'Server Emulators' Legal? 299

Posted by Cliff from the clones-in-the-MMRPG-arena dept.
Ashran: "I'm one of the lead developers on the EverQuest server emulator at HackersQuest. What I've wondered is, whenever creating an server emulator is legal in the U.S. It is legal here I live, but new team members might be from the U.S. We've received a few 'Cease and Desist' e-mails from the CEO of Verant, but we've ignored them all up to now. Does anyone have any experience in this field?" For those of you curious as to what a "server emulator" is, check out yesterday's article on the recent beta release. Well, at least Hemos gets his wish and now knows what Verant's reaction is.
This discussion has been archived. No new comments can be posted.

Are 'Server Emulators' Legal? More

Are 'Server Emulators' Legal?

Comments Filter:

  • Re:Get a lawyer (Score:2)

    by Anonymous Coward
    "Umm, if you're getting Cease-and-desist letters,
    you really probably shouldn't just ignore them."

    He said he was getting Cease and Desist EMAILS,
    which is not the same as getting certified letters.

    You probably should not respond to pseudo-legal
    letters of demand sent through email. Why would
    you want to provide any evidence that a person who
    may sue you can use?

    If you find yourself in a situation that may require a civil suit, use certified mail for your correspondence. Try to have the preponderance of
    evidence, since that's all that matters in a civil case. (No beyond-a-shadow-of-doubt here!)

    Perhaps clue your lawyer in on the emails, but
    don't reply to them. When they send you a certified letter demanding "cease and desist", hopefully they will overstep what's permitted by law, giving you the upper hand.

    It probably won't get ugly until a restraining order gets filed. You'll have talked to your
    lawyer by then, right?

  • Samba is a server emulator (Score:2)

    by Anonymous Coward
    ...and look ma, it has client emulator in the same package, too!

    Damn I hate stupid USAnian laws which they try to enforce elsewhere.

  • (I might have messed up the letters of that thing)

    Most states do not recignise shirnk wrap licenses. The DCMA specifically authorized reverse engineering for interoperability. You server will not work with their clien unless you reverse engineer it. You can probably argue in court that the clause of their license is invalid. That is not only are you legal (since you are reverse engineering for interoperability which congress clearly intened via the DMCA), but end users could be legal too.

    In any case you need a lawyer, which I am not, to send a threatening letter back to them. In the early rounds they can't do anything. Once they bring you to court you counter sue them under anti-trust acts, and harrassment acts. As the little guy juries will tend to agree with you. But you need a lawyer to plan the stragity, and that will cost $$$. (I wonder if the EFF is interested. saddly they might not have the money to fight your case)

  • Re:DMCA (Score:2)

    by Danse ( 1026 )

    IIRC, copyrighted works do not have to have any sort of notice on them. Many publishers and others do put notices on their works for clarity's sake, and to give them additional leverage in court if it comes to that. If a work doesn't have any copyright notice on it, the defendant could claim that he didn't know it was copyrighted. This wouldn't help him win the case, but it may help limit his liability when it comes time to hand down the punishment.

  • You're probably right, but we don't have much choice. We can't afford any politicians of our own.

  • Why? They didn't create those things. They aren't responsible for them either. If I want to write my own damn server that works with EQ clients, then that's my own damn business. They have no right to tell me that I can't do it. I don't give a rat's ass about their profits any more than they care about my rights. Especially if I never agree to their EULA. Even though it probably isn't enforceable anyway. My aim would be to create something that does what I want it to do, rather than what they want it to do. I'm not concerned about robbing anybody of anything. It's not IP theft. You're taking the whole IP thing way too damn far. Corps shouldn't be able to have that much control over what we do or don't do with a product that we buy.

  • Iomega *licensed* to epson, but they didn't get along well, and the deal was cancelled.

    I want to say that Iomega wasn't happy with Epson's prices, but it's been a while, and I'm not sure.
  • You confidently say "it's legal here". You may end up being unpleasantly suprised by just how long "the long arm of the law" ends up being. Even if you have specific legal cases that you can cite, you're very likely to end up in court, even in Austria.
    --
  • Documented in many locations is the fact that anything derived works are held under the same rights as the original, unless otherwise given up..

    Rob doesn't have to claim it is, legally it is, unless he's specifically given up that right to someone else, or the public domain..
  • I take the Perl source code to Slashdot, port it to Python (this would be a good idea anyway) and don't release the source. When the GPL zealots come breathing down my neck, I claim to have "reverse engineered" a slashdot "emulator". Do I have a case? Like hell.

    Sure you do, depending on how the "port" was done. In the traditional sense, you'll be writing your own python code, complete with your own copyright. Perhaps you've implemented it the same way, using the slashdot code for reference (even using some of the same function and variable names). It's still new code, inluenced by, but not derived from the original slash code. Where you might run into problems is if you do a "literal" port. That is, covert each individual perl statement to its corresponding python statement (assuming the two languages are 100% functionally equivalent). Then your code would be more of a translation than original code. However, virtually no "ports" to a new language are done this way.

  • Carnivore violates the DMCA!

    How delicious.
  • I don't know much about Greyworld, but UOX3 has always been open source. (I don't recall if it was GPL'd, but the source was certainly available.) I remember this because I could never get the SOB to compile on my Alpha.
  • You can't compare software to devices, or aparatus.

    Most certainly the design of the razor is patented, and through that patent, only one sort of blade, with the proper attachment mechanism can be attached to the razor.

    The blade, also being an aparatus with a very specific attachment mechanism, is patented.

    So, now we have the razor blade monopoly.

  • As far as I remember about Austria, their laws specifically differ from the rest of Europe

    Duh ... whatever. European countries' laws differ from each other. Howver member country of the EU share several treatis and laws. Austria is a member of the EU.

  • This is simple, blatant, anti-competitiveness.

    Indeed, and is specifically forbidden in Europe.

  • I believe the Samba team mostly reverse engineered the SMB protocol, which was'nt properly documented.

  • It seems to me that if I were creating a prototcol, I'd just make sure that the client and the server must exchange copies of my copyrighted logo as part of the authentication process. If you tried to write a server to use with my clients, my clients would barf because you didn't send down the proper (copyrighted) authentication. Same the other way.
  • You'll notice that one of their demands is for the physical address of the person who posted the copy of DeCSS. Once you do this, they can then send you an actual cease and desist order, instead of an email that carries no force of law.

  • Re:DMCA (Score:2)

    by jms ( 11418 )
    Any letter from you to them can only provide them with ammunition. Any communication from you whatsoever should be from your lawyer, not you personally. You simply cannot benefit.
  • Yes, that's it. Unless I'm mistaken it was Nomai.

    LK
  • I'm not talking about Epson. I'd remember if it was Epson, I'm talking about that French company. I believe it was Nomai. They also produced a 500MB removeable drive that was like 1/2 the price of a Jaz.
  • Remember a few years back when someone (Nomai I think) started to make disks and/or drives that were compatible with the Zip? Iomega got really pissed and sued them left and right.

    I think that Nomai wom in court, but in the marketplace Iomage kicked their ass. Nomai's "Super Floppy" was just too cheap for people to trust I guess...

    LK
  • As I was saying, you may be able to challenge the agreement on various grounds (including asserting that "it's a sale"), but that doesn't mean that there was no agreement to begin with. An unconscionable or otherwise invalid contract is still a contract until it has been found unenforceable. And in practical terms, some terms of EULAs seem to be enforceable, and UCITA promises to make this even stronger. You consider such agreements "meaningless" at your own risk.
  • It's not that simple. People don't just "buy" the EQ client. The software is subject to a license agreement and the service is subject to a service agreement. Both of those are legally binding contracts, and as part of agreeing to them, you may be agreeing to limit what you can and cannot do.

    There are a variety of things that could be challenged about such an agreement and there are many clauses companies routinely put into contracts that aren't enforceable or that don't make sense. But if you choose to violate the letter of some contract you are a party to, you better have a good idea beforehand why you should be able to do what you are doing. Otherwise, you may be facing a lot of liability.

  • All is well in the town of Hackerville when people only create nice and friendly server emulators. Emulators that let you or I or your Aunt to have a larger list of servers to connect to to play our ultra massively amazing multi-player online games. But this is a good use of reverse engineering in order to create alternatives to closed access server deamons. What happens after this though? Say you have a piece of software that updates itself over the net and uses a proprietary method of server-client communication. On the merely principal of the situation someone goes through the enormous effort to reverse engineer said protocol. Once the protocol is published the original creators have no edge of the competition which then incorporates it into their software or some jerkface uses said protocol to maliciously insert virii and bad sorts of things onto people's computers; through a service that is normally trustworthy. If a company gets thrashed due to server emulation is it still such a good thing?

  • The reason that you isolate the programmers from the sleuths is to avoid the appearance/possibility of copyright infringement. If I write a program that does function X, and you look at my code and write your own version, and your code turns out to be similar to mine, then I might have a pretty good argument that your code is derived from mine.

    I don't see any chance of that happening with HackerQuest (at least on the server). They haven't even had the opportunity to see EverQuest's server code, so there's no chance of HackerQuest being a derivative work of it.

    If they ever decide to clone the client, though, they would indeed need the isolation that you have described.


    ---

  • Here's an analogy; I take the Perl source code to Slashdot, port it to Python (this would be a good idea anyway) and don't release the source. When the GPL zealots come breathing down my neck, I claim to have "reverse engineered" a slashdot "emulator". Do I have a case? Like hell.

    No, the analogy is that you sniffed the packets between your and Slashdot, and also perhaps disassembled your web browser (the client). From that, you cloned Slashdot, without ever seeing the Slashdot code.

    If you do that and "GPL zealots" come breathing down your neck, you can righteously laugh at them, because your case will be rock solid.

    Emulating it involves replicating its functionality substantially, and this really could not be done without substantially ripping off its IP.

    It sounds like you believe that ideas are IP, rather than specific expressions.


    ---
  • No way.
    The DMCA doesn't conform to European law.
    Second, there are some laws herte which make it legal to make copies from books, cd's and videotapes for use at home.
    It is quit legal to copy a software CD-rom and put the original in a safe and use the copy.
  • If I were creating an online game and wanted to block unauthorized servers, I would obtain a patent for the communications protocol. This could be as simple as getting a patent for a data structure that is passed, or as complex as a patent for a new encryption or compression algorithm.

    Then I would have the option of shutting down servers not only based on copyright law, but also using patent law.

    I'm under the impression that they haven't done this, fortunately.
  • The pending DeCSS trial that is being prosecuted over the issues of trade secret and reverse engineering should give us a good idea of what to expect. Granted, if you are in a foreign country, the US court has no jurisdiction, but what happens to people in the US who choose to run these revere engineered servers is an entirely different matter.

    As of yet I do not believe there has been any determination in the US courts as to whether it is legal or not to place restrictions on reverse engineering as part of a license. Of course if somebody can just send a piece of software off to another country to have it legally reversse engineered its rather a moot point. This seems like a pretty big loop hole. Too big, I suspect to have the court system allow it. So either they'll have to declare prohibitions of reverse engineering invalid or declare that anybody using an illegaly reverse engineered item (even if it was done in a country where legal) would be subject to the same penalties as if it had been done here.

    So, apply the standard IANAL here, but if you are in a country that allows reverse engineering you can probably file those cease and desist letters in the garbage.

    ---

  • Actually...

    Packets are information.
    All information is copyrightable.
    The information is created by a product controlled by Corporation X.

    The packets are, at least, a derivative work, copyrightable by corporation X.
  • Sure. And Ford motor company removed a revenue stream from makers of horse drawn buggies, horse breeders, etc.

    That's not illegal, that's just the changing business world.

    Can you imagine a company called Shelters and Missions Inc. suing the Salvation Army because by providing free food and shelter to the homeless they were removing a potential revenue stream? It's ridiculous, and that's how it'd be if Verant claimed the same in this case.

    If a 20-user server with one or two volunteer GMs can draw users from Verant, then their service obviously isn't worth much. But they have a lot that will keep drawing people, paid GMs with more time to write quests and massively multiplayer world that aren't possible on end-user machines. If with all that, they can't hold onto any users, it's their fault for doing it badly.
  • Nope. Their EULA isn't legally binding (unless you're in one of the stupid states where the government was briber to pass the UCITA). So you can do whatever you want, with regards to reverse engineering, etc. The DMCA doesn't apply either because you're not cracking content protection systems.

  • Because the DMCA was written specifically to protect things like CSS, content 'access' control system. Writing a new server would be like figuring out how to make your own DVD from scratch...
  • Trying to hold someone to a contract they didn't see, let alone freely agree to is ludicrous. The US is the only country that has such stupid laws, and these laws came about only because of the wide-scale bribery of politicians. They may call it lobbying, but large ammounts of cash trade hands, that's a bribe...

    The EULA is completely without power, anywhere, except where the UCITA is in effect, that's why they were so eager to bribe politicians to pass it.
  • Yes, I'd prefer it if companies followed the law. But, obviously companies like Verant and Sony break the law all the time and like it.

    If you sell razors at a loss, to build a market for blade, and don't plan to compete with the inevitable competitors, you're a fucking moron, and deserve *no* legal support. It's not the place of the courts to give every moron out there a monopoly on some product. The whole idea of a free market is that people are free to do what they will.
  • Why not? Now that he's finished the DeCSS case, Kaplan's probably looking for work...
  • You may be a lawyer, but if so, you're a hideously bad one. I suspect you're just clueless.

    He didn't confuse copyrights and patents, he said that the DMCA offers a new twist, he was finished the patent discussion and pointed out another law to consider. Like saying "You're safe from fraud laws. The conspiracy to commit laws might be another case though..."

    Second, you can't infringe on the IP of something you don't have. Copyrights don't protect against simultaneous discovery like patents do. If two people write a nearly identical book and can both prove they did so independantly, they both get a copyright and neither has committed an offense. Because the everquest servers are not distributed to the public, only an employee would be in a position to commit copyright violation.

    They could patent the protocol, people can patent 'A method whereby the post to a message base is numbered 1, thus allowing for "First Post!!!!1!" to be stated...' and have it accepted, but that doesn't mean it'll hold up in court. Hell, judge Kaplan can probably patent his system for taking bribes. But, in the real world, they'd have to show that the server employed some special patentable technology in communicating with the client, which I highly doubt it does.

    As for them having the right to control the use of the software. Hell no! Should Microsoft be able to control the use of MS Word, allowing only approved content to be written?

    As for the GPL issue, you wouldn't have to release code, as long as you don't distribute anything. And you wouldn't have a 'Slashdot Emulator', you'd have Slashdot, merely ported to a different language.
  • I can buy my phone from whoever I like. It's only the service provider (USWest/Qwest) who has a monopoly.

    Back in the day you had to buy your phone from AT&T. That's one of the reasons they got broken up.

    --
  • The reason they (and I - IAAL, but not active/practicing) do this, is because of the draconian legal malpractice and/or unauthorized practice of law regulations in the U.S. If you don't put in a disclaimer, you could easily get sued for stating anything more specific than "you really ought to think about getting a will drafted" - folks like Nolo Press have been fighting this stuff for years. Plus with the internet's global reach, things like not being licensed to practice in xyz jurisdiction keep cropping up.

    You think M$ or intel has a monopoly, you should see the state bar assn's ;-P

    #include "disclaim.h"
    "All the best people in life seem to like LINUX." - Steve Wozniak

  • In the case of EverQuest, I really don't see what the problem is. People still buy your game, and they still use your game. They just aren't connecting to your server. Boo hoo. They aren't even copying anything they shouldn't. I mean, what should you care what they do in their own time, and who are you to tell your customers how they should use your product?

    You have to pay a monthly fee to play everquest. If you are connecting to a non veriant server you could probably bypass that little formality. This is why they would care.
  • And people wonder where all the anti-US flamewars come from.

    There is no smoke without fire.

    A lot of the arguments leveled against USians are fairly off the wall, but there is genuine resentment, that can't just be fobbed off as envy.

    And of course to make it worse, most US citizens have patriotism indoctrinated into them to a degree that would make Mr Mao proud.

    Most of history's revolutions have been the lower classes (generally conned by some fancy speaker) rising against the ruling class.

    America is the new world ruling class, if there is a revolution it's not going to be pretty.

    Just wish more of the people with the lawyers and the money would think further forward than their next quarters returns.

  • He said he was getting Cease and Desist EMAILS, which is not the same as getting certified letters.
    It's getting increasingly borderline - more countries seem to accept Digital signatures these days, and Receipt of Message notification packets are pretty much built into a lot of email systems. Provided the (Digital) signature is valid under both their and your law, and they can prove you received the message, they may well have a good case.
    --
  • Minor clarification: using copyrighted works without permission is not necessarily illegal (fair use is one defense), and occasionally is explicitly legal in the copyright code. See chapter 10, 1008. [loc.gov]

    In fact, that whole chapter is an interesting read, I highly recommend it.

  • Yes but what about using a proprietary protocol to open up a competing service without compensating the protocol developers?

    Is it patented? If not, then the protocol developers have no legal right to compensation for implementations of the protocol. I suspect that the "protected" ideas in Everquest code are not patentable, so they are fair game.

    If this protocol has restrictions then they should be honored.

    Ethically, maybe, but probably not. The restrictions are technological means to eek out compensation from an invention, not an entitlement. The restrictions are merely an indication that the developers (acutally owners) desire privity, but it doesn't grant them any moral or legal right to that privity. They are not entitled to compensation or even consideration. It would be the nice thing to do, but Verant isn't exactly interested in being friends with these developers.

    Talk with them don't ignore or antagonize them, that just creates bad blood.

    The bad blood existed with the first EULA that made people "agree" not to reverse engineer their product. Verant intimated their own bad faith in that EULA, and telegraphed that their intention is to provide a monopoly service and they'll make sure that you'll never compete with them. Seeing as the only true barrier to entry in the Everquest server market is economic, they needed to make it more legally intricate to protect their monopoly. They are discovering that this sleight-of-hand is insufficient to protect a monopoly in a free market. Patents are pretty much they only way to do it, because otherwise once something is published, people have a right to disassemble it, see how it works, and reimplement it if it is not patent[ed/able].

    Never ignore any legal document sent in any way.

    If it was sent via email, explicitly ignore it, unless it was signed by a trusted authority. We cannot allow the justice system to degrade to the point that any anonymous legal document is binds you just because the internet makes it easy to send out a C&D demand.

    At the worst just reply saying your lawyers are looking into it or something.

    You're right, this might be the worst. The best reply, unless the C&D was sent via registered mail to a specific recipient, is "mv threatening_email /dev/null"

  • If you want a legal notice delivered, there are several options. Deliver it yourself, have a friend deliver it, pay a total stranger to deliver it, hire a process server, or hire a sheriff, ect.

    All that matters is that the delivery person fills out the notice of service properly. Using a sheriff can cost more, but carries no legal signifigance in and of itself.

    If a sheriff knocks on your door and yells that he has some papers to give you, you _can_ ignore him. If he yells he has a _warrant_, thats quite different - open the door (or run out the back).

    There is a catch, of course - a corrupt LEO can invent a "reasonable belief" that a crime is happening and kick the door open, then "realize" there is none and give you the papers. Us citizens and process servers go to jail for this, and while LEO's should, they get away with it 99.999%+ of the time (thank you supreme court!)

  • Logging - this sort of process is often called a 'clean room' or 'chinese wall' technique (I have no idea why).

    What's very important is that you log every transmission between the 2 groups so that you can prove in court that no illicit information passes between the groups.

  • Well I remember a case ~2 years ago where RIAA successfully sued a citizen of denmark (I believe) for hosting a collection of song lyrics on his own private web server. This btw was a lawuit they filled in the US in a Cali court... Not to mention how more recent such cases in which individuals in other countries are sued in civil not criminal means and handled by US courts. Obviously something is up as if all these cases are filled in the US and deal with US laws when the 'offenders' are noy US citizens implies such things don't matter...

    But I'm just basing this on previous cases where foreign law didn't saw they were doing anything wrong, but US law did...

  • though it's closed source . . . the one that I picked up after trying UOX was GrayWorld (later TUS and now Sphere [sphereserver.com]). They actually have released a (beta) of a redone client as well. Didn't the UOX site have a page of links to numerous other projects?

    --

  • Don't go giving them any ideas, dammit! I need Samba, ok?

  • Shhhh! They might hear you!

    Um, does anyone know why MS never tried to stop Samba? I'm very curious... were they that confident in their technical ability to surreptitiously corrupt the Kerberos standard (and thereby stop Samba from working with Win2K) that they decided to forgo the legal path? That'd be a first...

  • The WTO is just a story made up to scare small children.... *gulp*

    ....isn't it? >:(

  • I thought it was packet sniffing and not reverse engineering. Was I wrong?
    Molog

    So Linus, what are we doing tonight?

  • He may not be a lawyer, but you are clearly not a programmer (NAP). What they did was clearly an implentation of a protocol. The way the everquest client (the "software application" as you said) communicates with the server (what they have made) is the protocol in question. He was speaking of weather that could be copyrighted/patented (it would probably be a patent since it is a method of doing something, not the complete software package, which would require a copyright). As far as "Holocaust Everest" goes. You apparently aren't familiar with any other computer game in the history of games. Doom, quake, duke3d, diablo and all sorts of other games have been subject to mods doing all sorts of crazy things. None, to the best of my knowledge, has ever faced legal action unless they specifically tried to charge for their mods or tried to imply that they were a product of the company that made the original game.
  • This is true, but I also content that it isolates the programmer from the Shrink Wrap License. Thus removing liability.
  • Won't work. You can't use copyright to prevent someone from making a working part. This is why there's a third-party auto parts industry. There are limits to the rights of the copyright holder, and they don't extend far enough to prevent interoperability. (This is pre-DMCA, but even the DMCA has an interoperability exception.)

    For example, non-Intel CPUs can return some phrase containing "INTEL" in the CPU ID if that's needed to make something work. This was an issue at one point in history where DOS was checking.

  • I totally agree.

    Can you say SAMBA? MS could take samba guys out they implmenet windows NT domain controllers cleanroom style, every open napster serer that works with the napster client is in danger all of that.. there are SOOO many products imlpemented like the EQ thing that these guys dont stand a chance in hell on any valid legal ground of trying and winning this case (Sony/Verant) not to say that they wont win.. but really there are soo many examples of this that this really is a weak example... I mean we have the client/server part already out here in use.. how can Sony claim its their IP other than the desing of the protocol which these guys can probably implement cleanroom anyway.

    Jeremy

  • In the case of EverQuest, I really don't see what the problem is. People still buy your game, and they still use your game. They just aren't connecting to your server. Boo hoo.

    It's like the consoles. Console makers take a loss on the console sale and make it up licensing the patent rights to produce software for the console. Likewise, MMORPG makers take a loss on client software development and make it up selling time on their servers.


    <O
    ( \
    XGNOME vs. KDE: the game! [8m.com]
  • This is slightly different though. If he was reverse engineering the erver to create a compatible server then it might cause problems.

    Since he is reverse engineering the client to produce a server, which will be its nature not share a substantial portion of the same code, he will probably be isolated in that way.
  • I also remember something about a cheap French nock-off, which might be what the original poster was referring to. Iomega claimed that they were suing mostly because the nock-offs were poor quality, and thus were hurting the Zip's reputation. I can't recall the details, though (although I'm pretty sure it wasn't Epson).
  • It is specifically stated in the EULA that every user has to "agree" too that you not reverse engineer any part of the application or its communication protocol for the purposes of cheating or creating a server emulator or anything along those lines.

    What if you didn't buy the software? What if your brother bought the software, uses it legally (Pays the fees, etc.), but you, being the Evil Hacker Brother (tm) that you are, decide to sniff his packets going through the house network and out the cable modem/dsl line? No one is violating an EULA (Unless it says you must not let anyone sniff any packets between your machine and the Verant servers). As far as I know, watching a program in action (For instance, watching over your brother's shoulder) does not bind you to its EULA (IANAL of course). Therefore, you can watch the program as your brother plays it, check your own packet sniffer, and figure it out that way.
  • Well, for one thing, it isn't really Slashdot's responsibility to be giving out legal advice. I mean, it's fun and all to speculate about whether Topic X is legal or not, but when it comes right down to it, our opinions don't mean Jack to the World of Law. This is a discussion board. Anyone coming to Ask Slashdot for advice on a legal matter in place of a lawyer get's what they deserve.

  • This is SONY Guys. Be Afraid. (Score:3)

    by Anonymous Coward on Thursday August 31, 2000 @08:27AM (#813854)

    It doesn't matter one whit if Origin left the UO emulator guys alone -- this is SONY, the same company which tried to sue the bejeezus out of the Bleem! guys, right?

    I certainly applaud your efforts -- Verant and Sony are making disgusting profits off this game ($45 or so Canadian for the game, then $10 Cdn per month? 200,000 or so users last I heard? You do the math. Has ANY game ever received over 2M in revenue per month? Sheesh.)

    In my opinion, Verant/Sony has done far to little to deserve this much money -- I recently sold my EQ to a friend. Considering how many people PAY to play EQ, you'd think they could change the spawn points and quests a bit -- the same boring crap over and over again. I can get that on free MUDs, thank you.

    But I digress -- Authors, stay anonymous. And you'd really better open your source and get it MIRRORED in case Sony drops the hammer on you. Remember Gnutella, it was nearly murdered in the cradle.

  • Right analogy, wrong conclusion (Score:3)

    by slothbait ( 2922 ) on Thursday August 31, 2000 @09:03AM (#813855)
    It's the old razor and razor blade analogy. Let's say a razor company sold razors for around cost, and then designed them so that no one else could make blades for them.

    This is the Gillette model: give them the razors cheap/free to build up demand for the blades, which is where they make their money. As you mention, console makers follow this model too: they take a hit on selling you the hardware, and make up the money through licensing fees on the games for their console.

    Thus far, your analogy holds. The error lies in associating the emulator with a knock-off blade company. The emulator is replacing the razor, not the blade. Recall that the original company gave away that razor at a loss to drum up business. Now some one else is taking that loss for them. Sony no longer has to sell you hardware at a loss to reap money off of games -- you can buy the games for your virtual playstation that didn't cost them a dime. Shouldn't they be happy? They still have their original revenue-source, and now it potentially reaches more customers.

    Well, obviously they are not happy because they've been going around suing people. The reason they are unhappy is that in allowing someone else into their market, they no longer have complete control. You mention the importance of control, but I don't think that you take it far enough. This goes beyond simple economics and into power. They know, as Microsoft knows, that controlling a market is how you make the long term money. They don't want to settle for good business -- they want to make the market sit up and beg.

    --Lenny

  • Re:How do you connect? (Score:3)

    by Nicolas MONNET ( 4727 ) <nicoaltiva@gm a i l.com> on Thursday August 31, 2000 @10:15AM (#813856) Journal

    The easy way is, of course, to put an entry in your HOSTS file to change the IP address of patch.everquest.com, but if Verant simply makes the client go to a specific IP address instead of a fqdn, then the only way to connect to the Server Emulator is to modify the client and NOW they've got you.

    Wrong, and wrong.

    There are ways around this, like patching system calls to redirect to the emulator server.

    Then as far as derivative work is concerned, I can do whatever derivative work I want for private use, as long as I don't distribute it. Are they going to sue me if I use their booklets as toilet paper? Are they going to sue me if I cook their CD in my microwave? I don't think so. They just have the right to piss off and get off my back.

  • EULA = Toilet Paper (Score:3)

    by Nicolas MONNET ( 4727 ) <nicoaltiva@gm a i l.com> on Thursday August 31, 2000 @10:03AM (#813857) Journal
    Who cares what the fucking EULA says? I'm French, et je m'entrave queudale. Ashram ist aus Österreich, und er spricht keine English. Et voila. It's Verant's fault. They just had to provide a legible agreement. "Agree", "Agree", ça veut dire quoi?

  • Re:Complicated... (Score:3)

    by Hooptie ( 10094 ) on Thursday August 31, 2000 @09:30AM (#813858) Homepage
    I thought that all legalese translates to

    "Bend over and enjoy it!"

    But then again, I am not a lawyer...

    Hooptie

  • Re:Double Blind Reverse Engineering (Score:3)

    by Captain Pillbug ( 12523 ) on Thursday August 31, 2000 @12:09PM (#813859)
    On the plus side, you can't take the pee out of the swimming pool.

    Actually, we've had a lot of success on the piss-removal front, with our enormous dialysis machine. If only we were having as much success with our put-the-cows-back-in-the-barn-after-the-barn-door- has-been-left-open device, codenamed border collie.

  • this is not good for open source/"hackers" (Score:3)

    by jetson123 ( 13128 ) on Thursday August 31, 2000 @10:05AM (#813860)
    I think you could make an argument that Verant can't prohibit you from doing this based on their EULA. But if they are sufficient persistent, even if you can make that argument, getting your way in court would be a lengthy and costly process.

    What I don't understand is why you bothered doing this in the first place. It was quite predictable that Verant wouldn't like this and might take you to court. And you are cloning a server for a proprietary game with proprietary clients, helping increase the popularity of the very company that's now causing you legal problems.

    In some areas, interoperability is important. Open source software really does need to be able to clone things like the MS Office file format and UI. But for something like Everquest, it would have been so much better to start from scratch with building a game that is similar and in the same genre (you could have based the client on any of a number of standalone open source games).

    I think this project is not worth spending much time or effort supporting for the open source and hacker community. It may set dangerous legal precedents, consume lots of legal resorces, and cost us good will. In fact, it doesn't even strike me as something that is technically particularly interesting to "hack"--what kind of interesting technical principles are you going to discover?

    My recommendation would be this: either stop the development for good and start an open source game effort to produce something in the same genre, or make what you have incompatible with EverQuest and develop your own client instead. I think there are more important and more rational battles to fight.

  • Re:Sure, it's legal. (Score:3)

    by WNight ( 23683 ) on Thursday August 31, 2000 @08:28PM (#813861) Homepage
    So, if I buy a car and then use third-party parts for the car (tires, spark plugs, etc) can the car company sue me?

    Nobody is 'taking' anything from Verant, they're just choosing not to continue using a redundant service.

  • Re:Sure, it's legal. (Score:3)

    by WNight ( 23683 ) on Thursday August 31, 2000 @08:30PM (#813862) Homepage
    Nope, it's a sale. Same as buying a book. You own that book. Copyright law may govern what you can do with it, but there's no way the book publisher has entered into a contract with you, no matter what they may want to claim. Ditto with software.

    The EULAs are completely meaningless, funny jokes at best, fraud at worst, and you can ignore them. Click 'I Agree' if you must, if they claim you entered into a contract you can point out that they're attempting extortion.

  • Re:Compatibility? (Score:3)

    by Rupert ( 28001 ) on Thursday August 31, 2000 @11:01AM (#813863) Homepage Journal
    The EQ box is an incomplete product. It requires a service to function. The tying of two products or services together is called bundling, and is generally illegal.

    Because they are separate products, I can use the IP in the client (which I've paid for) to create my own IP in a server. If the creators patented the idea of an EQ server, I owe them a licence fee, but I don't believe they have.

    None of this is theft.

    --

  • Re:Copyrighted world (Score:3)

    by DarkMan ( 32280 ) on Thursday August 31, 2000 @09:40AM (#813864) Journal
    There's a very clear way of showing this.

    They are not copying. They are imitating.

    To copy requires permission. To imitate (unless it's patented) does not.

    Think Coka-cola and Pepsi. One _imitated_ the other. They are not identical.

    It's the same way that FVWM95 is legal. It imitates (as closely as possable) the MS Windows GUI. It doesn't copy - that would be illegal.

  • Re:Free source? EverQuest people love it! (Score:3)

    by DarkMan ( 32280 ) on Thursday August 31, 2000 @08:51AM (#813865) Journal
    And, by the way, EverQuest can simply open a tiny office in Austria and you'd have to kiss your server goodbye - the newly opened office can legally sue you over copyright infrigerment.

    Nope sorry, try again.

    If this was about copyright, the Berne Convention [cornell.edu] applies.

    Given that reverse engineering is specifically allowed in most of Europe (I'm Scottish, can't comment directly on Austria), I doubt it applies.

    Anyway, for copyright to apply, they's have to have copyied part of Everquests work. If they haven't done that, copyright does not apply.

    Breach of contract is about all it could be, and if you think that the EULA is going to be held up as suffcient for that, I'll be very surprised.

  • poor analogy (Score:3)

    by underwhelm ( 53409 ) <underwhelm@NOsPAM.gmail.com> on Thursday August 31, 2000 @08:50AM (#813866) Homepage Journal
    It isn't stealing service, it is providing a competing service.

    Stealing service: using Verant's servers without compensating Verant. End users, not market competitors, steal service.

    Competing service: providing an alternate service. End users choose one among many competing services, increasing the incentive for each competing service provider to enhance their service.

    Sound anything like market competitors for open source service providers (Red Hat, slackware, Corel, etc.)? This is the central idea behind free markets, and using the DMCA to shelter an anti-competitve monopoly is probably not entirely legal.

    That doesn't mean a company like Verant cant try to get away with it and succeed--the people they are fighting in court need to be dedicated to their cause, or Verant basically wins by forfeit. If the server emulator developers expect a court action, they need lawyers preparing their defense today, and really aught to think about a preemptive strike. Take the offensive, get a declaratory judgement.

  • Because writing a CLIENT is bloody hard (Score:3)

    by UnknownSoldier ( 67820 ) on Thursday August 31, 2000 @01:26PM (#813867)
    Writing a dedicated server is WAY easier then writing a GRAPHICAL client. If you have worked in the game industry you would know this.

    Maybe I'll use a better analogy that more /.'ers will understand. How many people do you see writing new and innovative GUI's for Linux? Or how many programmers do you see creating a graphical front end for their programs? Because a command line program is easier to get done.

    Look, it takes a team of 10 to 30 people OVER a YEAR to write a game. Even up to 2 years of your life! The *basic* networking code can be done in a few weeks (allthough it is usually spread out over a few months for tweaking: mostly to deal with lag, and network performance.)

    There is a reason games take 1.5 years and cost a few million dollars to produce: Because they are *BIG* projects. You need programmers. You need artists. You need musicians. Here's the perfect example, open source even! See World Forge [worldforge.org] for how they are progressing.

    But dont' just take my word for it. I'm just a 3d graphics programer. Talk to other game developers.

    Where's Carmack to speak up when you need him? :-)

  • SAMBA (Score:3)

    by ColonelNorth ( 71286 ) on Thursday August 31, 2000 @08:53AM (#813868)
    Hmm, since Microsoft hasn't crushed SAMBA with it's Fist of Doom(tm), I wouldn't worry.
    I think that that would be the tell-tale sign since if server emulators were illegal by any strech of the immagination, the high financed Microsoft Legal crew would have smashed SAMBA into little bits by now.
    Instead they try to break it any chance they get.

  • DMCA (Score:3)

    by MostlyHarmless ( 75501 ) <artdent@[ ]eshell.org ['fre' in gap]> on Thursday August 31, 2000 @08:18AM (#813869)
    IANAL, BIWJJ (But I Watch Judge Judy :-))

    Up until now, it would have been perfectly ok. You're just creating an implementation of a protocol, and protocols IIRC cannot (and should not) be patented. Even if it is possible to patent a protocol, I doubt that protocol was patentable.

    However, the DMCA introduces a new twist. Even if the protocol is not obfuscated, one could argue that setting up a sniffer would be bypassing their protections. It's a stupid argument, but it might be a valid argument under the DMCA.
    --

  • Re:Complicated... (Score:3)

    by luckykaa ( 134517 ) on Thursday August 31, 2000 @08:53AM (#813870)
    That clause should be taken out and shot. Can someone write a version of babelfish to translate legalese?

  • Re:Write once, never can be written again (Score:3)

    by driehuis ( 138692 ) on Thursday August 31, 2000 @09:25AM (#813871)
    So no one can EVER write a new FTP server because it emulates a current version?

    Except, of course, that the FTP spec is publicly available, and has no end user license attached to it. Microsoft tried to pull this one with the Kerberos in W2K (well, one step further: they published it, but snuck wording into the EULA that takes rights away you wouldn't lose if you didn't read the spec but just reverse engineered it).

    I'd steer clear from the lawyers, until the radical departure from the constitution embodied in UCITA and DMCA gets tested in court (whatever happened to furthering society and protecting the little guy?) I would just as soon spend my money on funnier things than court cases.

  • It certainly has been decided, and reverse engineering is legal, if it is directed at producing a compatible application. Reverse engineering aimed at stealing somebody else's intellectual property is not legal, and this case looks to be decidedly an example of the latter.

  • stop watching Judge Judy; you are wrong (Score:3)

    by streetlawyer ( 169828 ) on Thursday August 31, 2000 @09:25AM (#813873) Homepage
    First, you are very clearly NAL; you've managed to confuse patents and copyrights in your third sentence.

    Secondly, Everquest is clearly, clearly not a "protocol". It's a software application. Emulating it involves replicating its functionality substantially, and this really could not be done without substantially ripping off its IP. In principle, you could reverse engineer the file formats, then do a "clean room" build of the emulator, but this would basically be the creation of a new online game engine, compatible with Everquest (allowing you to take advantage of the reverse engineering for compatibility loophole in DMCA). But somehow, I don't think that this is what these guys have done.

    What they're doing is creating an application, using the Everquest IP, which allows you to play a game very like Everquest without paying fees to Everquest, and which is not in the control of Everquest (what happens if someone downloads the emulator, gets hold of a load of Nazi content and creates "Holocaust Everquest"? Shouldn't the owners have the right to prevent that?).

    Here's an analogy; I take the Perl source code to Slashdot, port it to Python (this would be a good idea anyway) and don't release the source. When the GPL zealots come breathing down my neck, I claim to have "reverse engineered" a slashdot "emulator". Do I have a case? Like hell.

  • Connectix was not successfully stopped from creating a Playstation emulator (not exactly a "server emulator", but I'm sure it involved a bit of reverse engineering of both hardware and software). There is a GPL'ed StarCraft Battle.net server (bnetd). There is also a free Ultima Online server. There are many other examples of protocols that have been reverse engineered in whole or in part. I don't see how Everquest is any different. Of COURSE Verant is scared of this. When companies get scared they seem to instinctively send out cease and desist notices.

    -John

  • Re:Not true... (Score:3)

    by scowling ( 215030 ) on Thursday August 31, 2000 @09:36AM (#813875) Homepage
    Yes true.

    Jon Johansen was arrested because the authorities in Norway suspected that what he was doing was a criminal act in Norway. His appearance in the US was voluntary.

    You cannot be extradited on a civil matter.

    I'm a Canadian. Suppose that I slander you. You can sue me in a US court; I dont have to show up, and I never have to pay any judgment (although I'd be foolish to visit the US). You can, however, try to sue me in a Canadian court -- however, as you're not a citizen, your rights are limited.

    This does not extend to copyright, as an example, because Canada is signatory to the Berne convention; if I as a Canadian infringe on the copyright of an American, they can easily sue me in Canadian court, and/or pursue criminal charges against me in Canada (similarly, you could sue me in a US court, but, again, I wouldn't have to show up and would never have to pay a judgment, and copyright violation is not an extraditable offense, so criminal charges pressed against me in the US would be irrelevant).

    Again, no non-US citizen should ever worry about being sued in a US court.
    --

  • Re:Get a lawyer (Score:3)

    by scowling ( 215030 ) on Thursday August 31, 2000 @08:36AM (#813876) Homepage
    No, since he's not a US resident or citizen, he can safely ignore any C&D letters.

    Regardless of how nasty the US legal system is, it has absolutely no power over foreign nationals when it comes to civil cases.
    --

  • Sure, it's legal. (Score:4)

    by pb ( 1020 ) on Thursday August 31, 2000 @08:27AM (#813877)
    Emulators, server emulators, and mp3's are all legal.

    Using copyrighted material without permission (purchasing it or otherwise) probably isn't. This includes goods, ROMs, music, video, photos and text, although many of these are often not enforced... (which is how people often use tapes, video tapes, hard drives, photo-copy machines...)

    In the case of EverQuest, I really don't see what the problem is. People still buy your game, and they still use your game. They just aren't connecting to your server. Boo hoo. They aren't even copying anything they shouldn't. I mean, what should you care what they do in their own time, and who are you to tell your customers how they should use your product? You should help them, and give them some specs, and they'll like you better, and support you in the future.

    In my case, I'm pretty happy with Loki, for example. They produce great games, and they respond to the community. I beta-tested Heroes III, and I bought a copy, too. They added a lot of stuff they said they would, like fullscreen mode for non-root, and I think the map editor is in beta. I just need to ask them if the Expansion Packs will work with Linux, and if I could just get those separately, or if they have plans to port them...
    ---
    pb Reply or e-mail; don't vaguely moderate [ncsu.edu].

  • EULA = Toilet Paper (Score:4)

    by Nicolas MONNET ( 4727 ) <nicoaltiva@gm a i l.com> on Thursday August 31, 2000 @10:00AM (#813878) Journal

    Except in the US, thanks to the infamous DMCA, the EULA are a worthless piece of shit. Most of them are illegal. Case in point, Verant's license agreement for Everquest *IS* illegal in France. It prevents me from reselling the game ... illegal. It does'nt respect privacy laws ... it's illegal and they risk up to 3 years in jail. AND ON TOP OF THAT IT'S FUCKING WRITTEN IN ENGLISH. Guess what, I'd be surprise that any French court let them enforce it ... mwaaah ah ah ah.

  • May be legal to write, but not legal to use. (Score:4)

    by hatless ( 8275 ) on Thursday August 31, 2000 @09:19AM (#813879)
    It's pretty questionable whether DMCA and contractual prohibitions on reverse-engineering will hold up in court, and doubly so when dealing with a fairly transparent, essentially unencrypted protocol. Everquest's EULA does explicitly bind users of the software not to reverse-engineer it, but even beyond the enforceability of this clause, the end user is also prohibited from using the client with non-approved (read: clone) servers.

    So even if you developed a clean-room server clone that stood up to legal scrutiny, end users are prohibited from using it. In other words, you might be able to defend the creation of the server, but nobody can play on it with a real Everquest client. The players don't own the software, you know. They just have a revocable license to use it with the official servers under its terms of service.

    My approach to defending against this--if the clone server was made in a defensible, double-blind manner--would start by warning users that connecting to a clone server is a violation of their Everquest license agreement and that they (the players) are open to prosecution if they connect to it with the offiicial software.

    You may want focus on a (clean-room) clone of the client. Even an incomplete, experimental one. And then distribute it so that it becomes difficult to determine who is connecting to the clone servers with an EULA-violating official client. After all, if there's reasonable probability that a given user on a legal clone server is using a legal clone client, a judge feel that a request to subpoena IP traffic information logging who was connecting to the server and when would be too broad and invasive.

    Just some thoughts. Your lawyer's advice may be very different.

  • Complicated... (Score:4)

    by DarkMan ( 32280 ) on Thursday August 31, 2000 @08:21AM (#813880) Journal
    From thier EULA [slashdot.org]

    9. You may not use any third party software to modify the Software to change Game play. You may not use our intellectual property rights contained in the Game or the Software to create or provide any other means through which the Game may be played by others, as through server emulators


    Which means, if you you didn't agree to this clause (which, I belive only went in with the latest patch), Evergquest are implicity saying that you have the right to make a server emulator. Else why explicetly ban it now?

    There is also the DMCA act - I think that a server counts as 'interoperability', don't you?

    And lets not forget the strong legal standing affored to EULA - ie bog all [0].

    To me, if you can build a playstation emulator, why can you do the same for a server? Your emulating very similar things (a required interface for the software you purchased to work).

    Course, whether or not the courst agree with common sense remains to be seen.

    [0] UCITA may have changed that

  • /. -- Get a lawyer! (Score:4)

    by sperrine ( 63102 ) on Thursday August 31, 2000 @09:28AM (#813881) Homepage
    Mildly off-topic -- but this is Ask Slashdot, right? So why doesn't Slashdot have someone on staff who can answer these questions from a legal standpoint? The question is, or seems to be, a simple one. If the EULA for software says that you may only connect up with the authorized server, is it legal for me to connect up to a different server? Is it really legal for them to put an extra requirement on the client piece, that I did not agree to when buying their box with a cd in it? An on-staff legal advisor at /. could give a quick answer, and do further research. I mean, sure the guy (or gal) would quickly become as loved and hated as JKatz ... but would still be a very valuable addition to the /. staff. Surely Andover can afford it, right? What's the stock at today? Another question ... say I buy a piece of software, and agree to some restrictions. Is the company on the other end really allowed to just up and change the terms and agreements at any time? That's fairly standard text in EULAs ... but is it legal? If they change the text, say to include new text stating that I can't connect my client software to any server but theirs, then can I demand an instant refund and return the software to them? IANAL ... so I dunno. But if there was /. lawyer reading over posts, giving quick answers and then digging into precedents a little bit ... we might have a little more solid answer to questions like this, instead of the fairly standard mob-rule FUD answers we get now.

  • Analogies for server emulators... (Score:4)

    by barleyguy ( 64202 ) on Thursday August 31, 2000 @08:29AM (#813882)
    What is happening with server emulators, as well as many other products (DVD, Playstation Emulators, etc.) is that companies are making a product which requires another product. Then they are trying to control where you get that second product.

    It's the old razor and razor blade analogy. Let's say a razor company sold razors for around cost, and then designed them so that no one else could make blades for them. Then, when some other company figures out how to make the blades, you hire a bunch of lawyers and sue them to high heaven.

    This is simple, blatant, anti-competitiveness. You can argue that the company depends on it for profits, but that doesn't make it legitimate. If you sell a product at a loss to bait the sale of another product, you are taking a risk. The risk is that your customers may buy that other product from a competitor, or even get it for free from someone giving it away. Using legal pressure to force that competitor to "cease and desist" is unethical and anticompetitive, as well as a misuse of the legal system.

    However, in today's society, certain companies seem to be getting away with it anyway.....

  • Yes.. most of the time. (Score:4)

    by Sawbones ( 176430 ) on Thursday August 31, 2000 @08:19AM (#813883)
    For EthernalQuest yes. It is specifically stated in the EULA that every user has to "agree" too that you not reverse engineer any part of the application or its communication protocol for the purposes of cheating or creating a server emulator or anything along those lines.

    Verant took a cue from Ultima Online and hoped to squash the thousands of private servers before they started.

    However I'm fairly certain the enormous hardware requirements to run a decent private server as well as the lack of the semi-refined mob AI will keep the private servers to a minimum.

    Now the question of server emulators in general? IANAL but unless it is word for word prohibited in the EULA that you agree to when you purchase and or launch the software in question I'd say it may fall under the "acceptable reverse-engineering for compatability" umbrella of protection.

  • How do you connect? (Score:4)

    by Ereth ( 194013 ) on Thursday August 31, 2000 @09:05AM (#813884) Homepage
    It strikes me that one point nobody has mentioned is that the EQ client connects to Verant's Patch Server and then to Verant's Login Server. Any Server Emulator is going to have to not only emulate that process, but have a way for the client to connect to it, since the client has no method of choosing to connect somewhere else.

    The easy way is, of course, to put an entry in your HOSTS file to change the IP address of patch.everquest.com, but if Verant simply makes the client go to a specific IP address instead of a fqdn, then the only way to connect to the Server Emulator is to modify the client and NOW they've got you. You may be able to get away with putting up a server, but the legalities of modifying their client (which, of course, you are licensed to use but do not own, grrr!) is much easier to convince a court to prohibit.

    Or are you doing it with a small program running on the client machine that intercepts and reroutes packets (a man-in-the-middle attack)?

  • My Humble 2 Shillings (Score:4)

    by ackthpt ( 218170 ) on Thursday August 31, 2000 @08:59AM (#813885) Homepage Journal
    If you can do some like this, why not create your own game and forget about duplicating these people's server.

    Take the best features, dump the worst, add new things you wish it had.

    Vote [dragonswest.com] Naked 2000

  • Don't Ask Slashdot!!! (Score:5)

    by Anonymous Coward on Thursday August 31, 2000 @10:03AM (#813886)
    I am putting this in the first thread to make sure you see it, because it is important that you do.

    You have lawyers going after you...

    Talk to a lawyer! ASAP!

    Get together with a lawyer that specializes in this type of law, and get them to consult and advise you on the issue. Knowing what your rights are is critical to your business and your personal welfare right now, do not act on the advice of a bunch of computer hackers. Some of the comments here appear to be informative, but I am not qualified to judge their merits, and neither are you. Don't fuck around with your legal rights and liabilities; bring in the professionals and do it right.

    If you choose to go with the legal opinions of anonymous kernel programmers, you do so at your own peril.

  • Get a lawyer (Score:5)

    by epaulson ( 7983 ) on Thursday August 31, 2000 @08:19AM (#813887) Homepage
    Umm, if you're getting Cease-and-desist letters, you really probably shouldn't just ignore them. Even if they are totally full of shit, the US legal system can be nasty.

    IANAL, and Ask Slashdot most certainly is not either.

  • ;you are wrong (Score:5)

    by underwhelm ( 53409 ) <underwhelm@NOsPAM.gmail.com> on Thursday August 31, 2000 @09:52AM (#813888) Homepage Journal
    What they're doing is creating an application, using the Everquest IP

    Which flavor of IP? Copyright, trademark, patent or trade secret?


    switch (IP) {

    case ("copyright") :
    It is not a violation of copyright to
    reverse engineer computer code. If it is
    done in a double-blind fashion,
    copyright is moot.

    case ("trademark") :
    Don't use the Everquest name to market
    the product, or explicitly and
    consistently disclaim that Verant/Sony
    has no affiliation and does not condone
    the product.

    case ("patent") :
    Well if it is patented, you're up a
    creek. I don't think it's patented,
    though, because I don't think it's
    patentable. I'd be happy to be
    demonstrated wrong.

    case ("trade secret") :
    It isn't a secret if you published it.
    Even with a no reverse-engineering
    clause in the EULA, because that's a
    legally weak argument (and that's an
    understatement.)

    }

    (what happens if someone downloads the emulator, gets hold of a load of Nazi content and creates "Holocaust Everquest"? Shouldn't the owners have the right to prevent that?)

    Only in that the product would clearly be a misappropriation of their trademark. Call it GEORGE-3D and you're off the hook.

    I take the Perl source code to Slashdot, port it to Python (this would be a good idea anyway) and don't release the source.

    If you ported it, you own the copyright, you've got control of the code. This can be challenged by Andover, perhaps by saying that a translation of their work violates their copyright like a translation of Hitchhiker's Guide to the Galaxy into Icelandic would be, and they may win, but only because you didn't do it in a double-blind fashion. Let's just say you wouldn't necessarily lose.

  • Should Still be Legal (Score:5)

    by Greyfox ( 87712 ) on Thursday August 31, 2000 @09:00AM (#813889) Homepage Journal
    First: Disclaimer: IANAL (But I play one on TV!)

    EULAs are of questionable legal standing outside a couple of states here, and reverse engineering a protocol could in no way be viewd as bypassing any sort of copy protection so you should be clear of any DMCA nastiness that's found its way outside the US. Check with your friendly EU/WIPO representative to be sure. Personally I'd tell the guys at Verant to blow you and merrily post their E-Mails on your web site.

    However

    Why not use your formidable programming talents to help the WorldForge project instead, providing a completely unencumbered and free client and server? Users of your EverQuest server software are going to invalidate their license and Verant might get nasty and start cancelling their accounts. They apparently don't seem to think that they can compete in terms of creativity, world design or game balance or they'd just be ignoring you.

    Editorial/Opinion/Rant/Flame

    Of course, I have Linux and Only Linux on my system, and there never was a Linux port of EverQuest, so the guys at Verant can blow me, too. I did have UO for a while, until they stopped maintaining the Linux client after which I dropped my account, so the guys at Origin can blow me too. And while we're on the subject of blowing me, the guys at the RIAA and the MPAA can blow me, too. And all the congress people who've been allowing the corporate erosion of the Bill of Rights can also blow me. And the WIPO and the ICANN can blow me too. There needs to be a lot of blowing going on, yessir...

  • Double Blind Reverse Engineering (Score:5)

    by Kagato ( 116051 ) on Thursday August 31, 2000 @08:57AM (#813890)
    This is one of the reasons that double blind reverse engineering is a huge deal.

    IANAL:

    Way back to the IBM PC days people wondered how to clone something that had restrictive licenses and not get sued (Or at least win in the event). The solution is creating a double blind.

    The proccess is simple, but needs two very seperate parts. This is basically how IBM BIOS was originally reverse engineered.

    Person A owns the product in question. This person is charged with writing a specification. "When XXXX is sent to the computer YYYYY should respond back based on ZZZZ" This person isn't writing any code. They are simply documenting a specification.

    Person A hands the spec to Person B. Person B is a programmer. They create a program based on the Spec that Person A has created. Person B should not touch the product at all. They shouldn't interact. If they need testeding then they need Person C to test the product.

    The main goal to all of this is to isolate the programmer from the product you are reverse engineering. This avoids both copyright and License issues at bay.

    In this case I think you're screwed. Even if you had a legal chance there hasn't been much throught about how to isolate programmers from liability.

    On the plus side, you can't take the pee out of the swimming pool. So even if you cease and disist someone could pick up the code and continue working on it.

  • Re:Get a lawyer (Score:5)

    by Mr. Jaggers ( 167308 ) <(jaggerz) (at) (gmail.com)> on Thursday August 31, 2000 @08:32AM (#813891)
    More importantly, this /. article is public domain, and therefore it could be considered a claim that you have, in fact, read, received and understood those letters.

    Most of the U.S. legal system is based on issuing notices. Many times, a person cannot be held liable for specific things until they have been officially served notice. Check fraud and bad credit debt come to mind immediately... (if you have creditors after you, just hide from them... they have to tell you in person that they are taking you to court... if you are not informed in person you don't have to go)

    Disclaimer: IANAL (I am not anal either!)


Slashdot Top Deals

It is easier to write an incorrect program than understand a correct one.

Close