visualAd
Mar 23rd, 2008, 03:32 AM
I was having an interesting discussion about this with another member here on MSN. We were talking about whether it was possible to reverse engineer a web site feature; bearing in mind the person who is reverse engineering it cannot see any of the code being executed on the server.
I argued that while no executable code is being disassembled; that the idea behind reverse engineering is that you see the working product and produce a a similar product that does the same as the original; the inner workings of the copy may be different but its function is the same. I also argued that disassembly is quite esoteric and does not necessarily follow the logic that the original author used when programming his / her algorithm. So the person looking at it can only really get clues about internal data flow.
I do believe a web site or a website feature can be reverse engineered solely through examination of the HTML and the HTTP input vectors (even less). As for legality; obviously, making a carbon-like copy of a site is a Copyright infringement but what about any reverse engineered features? If the original inventor can patent it it but it is hard to make a distinction between invention and need. This patent (http://www.google.com/patents?id=O2YXAAAAEBAJ&dq=5,960,411) filed by Amazon could mean every e-commerce (cart-like) website is in violation; surely Amazons method is the most logical route anyone else would take in solving the problem? Without going down the patent debate route, a very specific and revealing patent would be needed to protect a feature on web site which would probably need to reveal the inner workings.
My opinion: It is possible to reverse engineer a website and like hardware and software on the computer it is not illegal provided you have obtained it through a legitimate channel. The channel by which you obtain a web site is usually a public channel and could thus be seen as legitimate. Patents offer some protection against it but can risk being too board and require the owner be very explicit about the inner workings of the feature.
I argued that while no executable code is being disassembled; that the idea behind reverse engineering is that you see the working product and produce a a similar product that does the same as the original; the inner workings of the copy may be different but its function is the same. I also argued that disassembly is quite esoteric and does not necessarily follow the logic that the original author used when programming his / her algorithm. So the person looking at it can only really get clues about internal data flow.
I do believe a web site or a website feature can be reverse engineered solely through examination of the HTML and the HTTP input vectors (even less). As for legality; obviously, making a carbon-like copy of a site is a Copyright infringement but what about any reverse engineered features? If the original inventor can patent it it but it is hard to make a distinction between invention and need. This patent (http://www.google.com/patents?id=O2YXAAAAEBAJ&dq=5,960,411) filed by Amazon could mean every e-commerce (cart-like) website is in violation; surely Amazons method is the most logical route anyone else would take in solving the problem? Without going down the patent debate route, a very specific and revealing patent would be needed to protect a feature on web site which would probably need to reveal the inner workings.
My opinion: It is possible to reverse engineer a website and like hardware and software on the computer it is not illegal provided you have obtained it through a legitimate channel. The channel by which you obtain a web site is usually a public channel and could thus be seen as legitimate. Patents offer some protection against it but can risk being too board and require the owner be very explicit about the inner workings of the feature.