Reverse Engineering

[visualAd]

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 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.

[RobDog888]

Well, Patents and Copyrights are different. I think its more of a copyright issue if they have plagerized your website code through one means or another. A Patent would imply that you have written unique code and invented some logic that would allow for a patent.

I think its amazon that has it, the "Click Once" (or whatever its called) feature it copyrighted by name and the code design is more of the black box that is also protected by copyright. If you design and write your own black box to do the same thing and name it something else then that is a gray area. Guess it just depends on the closeness of what you have "developed". I wouldnt call it "reverse engineering" per se but more of a duplication of its functionality.

[DirtyHowi]

considering the technology is readily available to hand back a copy of the scripting on a page, don't know why VA's friend would think its so difficult.

[penagate]

Patents protect innovations by stifling innovation. They are a false security, afforded to those who have run out of ideas and wish only to selfishly protect what they have.

If you have a wonderful, practical idea, and can implement it: that's innovation.

Soon others will copy you, and in some cases out-do you. That's competition.

Your job is to keep innovating.

[mendhak]

Look at all the youtube clones (assuming it's original), facebook clones (assuming it's original), flickr clones (assuming it's original)... Working examples of reverse engineers, but suitably modified to appear different so that they don't appear to be blatant copiers, just an alternative choice.

[DigiRev]

It's possible to reverse-engineer anything that takes input and produces output...

As far as the clones of those websites, the features in them really aren't that hard to produce on your own if you know how to write software...

I could write a MySpace clone real easily but what would be the point and who would have enough bandwidth to host it...

[RobDog888]

I think the issue is the terminology. Duplicating an input/output without knowing the blackbox involved inbetween is not reverse engineering but rather just writting your own code to produce the same outputs. IMO, reverse engineering is more related to decompiling executables.

[visualAd]

I think the issue is the terminology. Duplicating an input/output without knowing the blackbox involved inbetween is not reverse engineering but rather just writting your own code to produce the same outputs. IMO, reverse engineering is more related to decompiling executables.

I don't think it is. The use of some kind of decompiler could be seen as a tool in reverse engineering. The opposite also applies though - you can reverse engineer and application when you have the source code.

And there seem to be many definitions as well that fit all the arguments

http://www.google.co.uk/search?q=def...G=Search&meta=

[RobDog888]

So then you agree on the original point that we are talking about the same thing using different terminology