White SW Computer Law
Intellectual Property, Information Technology & Telecommunications Lawyers
Melbourne Office - PO Box 452, COLLINS STREET WEST Victoria 8007 Australia
Sydney Office - GPO Box 2506, SYDNEY New South Wales 2001 Australia
Telephone: Melbourne Office - +61 3 9629 3709 Sydney Office - +61 2 9233 2600
Facsimile: Melbourne Office - +61 3 9629 3217 Sydney Office - +61 2 9233 3044
Email: wcl@computerlaw.com.au Internet: http://www.computerlaw.com.au

User Tools

Site Tools


bestpracslic

Differences

This shows you the differences between two versions of the page.

Link to this comparison view

Both sides previous revision Previous revision
Next revision
Previous revision
bestpracslic [2011/10/17 20:21]
steve [4. Jurisdiction]
bestpracslic [2017/07/30 18:02] (current)
Line 74: Line 74:
 The practice of software reverse engineering was examined in the US case //​[[case_links#​Sega Enterprises Ltd v Accolade, Inc|Sega Enterprises Ltd v Accolade, Inc]]//. Reverse engineering a software program usually involves the creation of a disassembled copy of the original object code and then the production of a non-infringing software program. This process gives rise to a potential copyright problem in that the disassembled code could be considered to be a derivative work of the original program. In normal circumstances,​ you need to seek the permission of the copyright holder before creating a derivative work. The practice of software reverse engineering was examined in the US case //​[[case_links#​Sega Enterprises Ltd v Accolade, Inc|Sega Enterprises Ltd v Accolade, Inc]]//. Reverse engineering a software program usually involves the creation of a disassembled copy of the original object code and then the production of a non-infringing software program. This process gives rise to a potential copyright problem in that the disassembled code could be considered to be a derivative work of the original program. In normal circumstances,​ you need to seek the permission of the copyright holder before creating a derivative work.
  
-The Court decided in the Sega matter that decompilation constituted a copyright infringement. This decision was not followed in the matter of //[[wcl:case_links#​Atari Games Corporation v Nintendo, Inc|Atari Games Corporation v Nintendo, Inc.]]// In this matter the Court held that decompilation of a software program for the purpose of studying the ideas behind the software may be a permissible fair use. Following the decision in the Atari matter, the original decision in the Sega matter was reversed on appeal.+The Court decided in the Sega matter that decompilation constituted a copyright infringement. This decision was not followed in the matter of //​[[case_links#​Atari Games Corporation v Nintendo, Inc|Atari Games Corporation v Nintendo, Inc.]]// In this matter the Court held that decompilation of a software program for the purpose of studying the ideas behind the software may be a permissible fair use. Following the decision in the Atari matter, the original decision in the Sega matter was reversed on appeal.
  
 ==== AUSTRALIA ==== ==== AUSTRALIA ====

  © White SW Computer Law 1994-2019. ABN 94 669 684 644. All Rights Reserved.
  Liability limited by a scheme approved under Professional Standards Legislation
  This website is a guide only and should not be used as a substitute for proper legal advice.
  Readers should make their own enquiries and seek appropriate legal advice.
  For legal advice please email wcl@computerlaw.com.au