Is it illegal to publicly share technical information discovered by tinkering, if information is used to modify the device? Planned maintenance scheduled April 17/18, 2019 at 00:00UTC (8:00pm US/Eastern) Announcing the arrival of Valued Associate #679: Cesar Manara Unicorn Meta Zoo #1: Why another podcast?Is it allowed to “copy” a video game concept?

Can an alien society believe that their star system is the universe?

How to compare two different files line by line in unix?

How do I make this wiring inside cabinet safer? (Pic)

What would be the ideal power source for a cybernetic eye?

Do I really need to have a message in a novel to appeal to readers?

For a new assistant professor in CS, how to build/manage a publication pipeline

How do I find out the mythology and history of my Fortress?

What do you call the main part of a joke?

Generate an RGB colour grid

Around usage results

What is homebrew?

What causes the direction of lightning flashes?

Trademark violation for app?

Using et al. for a last / senior author rather than for a first author

First console to have temporary backward compatibility

Why wasn't DOSKEY integrated with COMMAND.COM?

Fantasy story; one type of magic grows in power with use, but the more powerful they are, they more they are drawn to travel to their source

What is the escape velocity of a neutron particle (not neutron star)

How do pianists reach extremely loud dynamics?

また usage in a dictionary

Why are there no cargo aircraft with "flying wing" design?

Irreducible of finite Krull dimension implies quasi-compact?

When coming out of haste, do attackers have advantage on you?

How would a mousetrap for use in space work?



Is it illegal to publicly share technical information discovered by tinkering, if information is used to modify the device?



Planned maintenance scheduled April 17/18, 2019 at 00:00UTC (8:00pm US/Eastern)
Announcing the arrival of Valued Associate #679: Cesar Manara
Unicorn Meta Zoo #1: Why another podcast?Is it allowed to “copy” a video game concept?










7















I recently bought a product, let's say a car, with limitations intentionally introduced to the design, for example an electronic speed limiter. Being a bit of a tinkerer, I messed with my model until I figured out how to remove this limitation (i.e. remove the electronic speed limiter). If I were to publish this information online, telling other people how to modify their models, would it be legal?



As another example, let's say I figured out how to raise the power on a brand-name microwave, or increase the cooking speed of a rice cooker. Provided the end result isn't in violation of any particular safety laws (and assume for the purpose that they do not), can I legally publish the information of how to do so?










share|improve this question
















bumped to the homepage by Community 20 mins ago


This question has answers that may be good or bad; the system has marked it active so that they can be reviewed.















  • Manipulating safety features, especially on cars, can lead to the item failing to qualify to the safety standards and breech laws or insurance contracts this way. This might actually qualify for a question of its own!

    – Trish
    Aug 9 '18 at 11:30











  • Are you doing hardware or software changes? The speed limiter in a car is almost certainly going to be software, not hardware. I don't know about the microwave or rice cooker (although I will point out that running more power than expected through an electrical appliance may not be safe). For software, you should consider the DMCA in the United States, and in general what laws were made to satisfy the WIPO treaty.

    – David Thornley
    Dec 18 '18 at 22:44















7















I recently bought a product, let's say a car, with limitations intentionally introduced to the design, for example an electronic speed limiter. Being a bit of a tinkerer, I messed with my model until I figured out how to remove this limitation (i.e. remove the electronic speed limiter). If I were to publish this information online, telling other people how to modify their models, would it be legal?



As another example, let's say I figured out how to raise the power on a brand-name microwave, or increase the cooking speed of a rice cooker. Provided the end result isn't in violation of any particular safety laws (and assume for the purpose that they do not), can I legally publish the information of how to do so?










share|improve this question
















bumped to the homepage by Community 20 mins ago


This question has answers that may be good or bad; the system has marked it active so that they can be reviewed.















  • Manipulating safety features, especially on cars, can lead to the item failing to qualify to the safety standards and breech laws or insurance contracts this way. This might actually qualify for a question of its own!

    – Trish
    Aug 9 '18 at 11:30











  • Are you doing hardware or software changes? The speed limiter in a car is almost certainly going to be software, not hardware. I don't know about the microwave or rice cooker (although I will point out that running more power than expected through an electrical appliance may not be safe). For software, you should consider the DMCA in the United States, and in general what laws were made to satisfy the WIPO treaty.

    – David Thornley
    Dec 18 '18 at 22:44













7












7








7


1






I recently bought a product, let's say a car, with limitations intentionally introduced to the design, for example an electronic speed limiter. Being a bit of a tinkerer, I messed with my model until I figured out how to remove this limitation (i.e. remove the electronic speed limiter). If I were to publish this information online, telling other people how to modify their models, would it be legal?



As another example, let's say I figured out how to raise the power on a brand-name microwave, or increase the cooking speed of a rice cooker. Provided the end result isn't in violation of any particular safety laws (and assume for the purpose that they do not), can I legally publish the information of how to do so?










share|improve this question
















I recently bought a product, let's say a car, with limitations intentionally introduced to the design, for example an electronic speed limiter. Being a bit of a tinkerer, I messed with my model until I figured out how to remove this limitation (i.e. remove the electronic speed limiter). If I were to publish this information online, telling other people how to modify their models, would it be legal?



As another example, let's say I figured out how to raise the power on a brand-name microwave, or increase the cooking speed of a rice cooker. Provided the end result isn't in violation of any particular safety laws (and assume for the purpose that they do not), can I legally publish the information of how to do so?







united-states intellectual-property ixl






share|improve this question















share|improve this question













share|improve this question




share|improve this question








edited Dec 11 '17 at 21:26









Nij

2,09231326




2,09231326










asked Dec 11 '17 at 7:26









TheEnvironmentalistTheEnvironmentalist

5822415




5822415





bumped to the homepage by Community 20 mins ago


This question has answers that may be good or bad; the system has marked it active so that they can be reviewed.







bumped to the homepage by Community 20 mins ago


This question has answers that may be good or bad; the system has marked it active so that they can be reviewed.














  • Manipulating safety features, especially on cars, can lead to the item failing to qualify to the safety standards and breech laws or insurance contracts this way. This might actually qualify for a question of its own!

    – Trish
    Aug 9 '18 at 11:30











  • Are you doing hardware or software changes? The speed limiter in a car is almost certainly going to be software, not hardware. I don't know about the microwave or rice cooker (although I will point out that running more power than expected through an electrical appliance may not be safe). For software, you should consider the DMCA in the United States, and in general what laws were made to satisfy the WIPO treaty.

    – David Thornley
    Dec 18 '18 at 22:44

















  • Manipulating safety features, especially on cars, can lead to the item failing to qualify to the safety standards and breech laws or insurance contracts this way. This might actually qualify for a question of its own!

    – Trish
    Aug 9 '18 at 11:30











  • Are you doing hardware or software changes? The speed limiter in a car is almost certainly going to be software, not hardware. I don't know about the microwave or rice cooker (although I will point out that running more power than expected through an electrical appliance may not be safe). For software, you should consider the DMCA in the United States, and in general what laws were made to satisfy the WIPO treaty.

    – David Thornley
    Dec 18 '18 at 22:44
















Manipulating safety features, especially on cars, can lead to the item failing to qualify to the safety standards and breech laws or insurance contracts this way. This might actually qualify for a question of its own!

– Trish
Aug 9 '18 at 11:30





Manipulating safety features, especially on cars, can lead to the item failing to qualify to the safety standards and breech laws or insurance contracts this way. This might actually qualify for a question of its own!

– Trish
Aug 9 '18 at 11:30













Are you doing hardware or software changes? The speed limiter in a car is almost certainly going to be software, not hardware. I don't know about the microwave or rice cooker (although I will point out that running more power than expected through an electrical appliance may not be safe). For software, you should consider the DMCA in the United States, and in general what laws were made to satisfy the WIPO treaty.

– David Thornley
Dec 18 '18 at 22:44





Are you doing hardware or software changes? The speed limiter in a car is almost certainly going to be software, not hardware. I don't know about the microwave or rice cooker (although I will point out that running more power than expected through an electrical appliance may not be safe). For software, you should consider the DMCA in the United States, and in general what laws were made to satisfy the WIPO treaty.

– David Thornley
Dec 18 '18 at 22:44










2 Answers
2






active

oldest

votes


















0














In my opinion, you are totally free to publish the information.



There are two areas of law that can be cosidered - private and public law.



In the private law area, you can be liable for revealing trade secrets, but only if you agreed to keep them by a contract. Trade secrets do not exist by themselves (there are minor exceptions, eg. in competition law, but those do not concern us), they must be protected by contracts. Another private limitations, like libel laws, won't apply here.
This is not uncommon, but not in cars - you can find clauses like these in software license agreements.



Then there is the public area. Is there any regulation, any policy of the state, that prevents you from publishing it? I am not aware you whole legal code of your state, but I doubt there is. It would be a harsh limitation of freedom of speech. Even if the modification could lead to illegal effect (like, modifying toy weapon to kill by rising its power...) it would be only illegal under very rare circumstances.



To conclude it - freedom of speech can be limited only if there is sufficient public interest to do so, and I don't see any.






share|improve this answer






























    -1














    I think it depends on whether you can be accused of revealing trade secrets or violating patents, as this kind of thing usually turns into an intellectual property battle.



    Generally, you'd be protected from trade secret litigation if it can be shown that you discovered your secret modification on your own, and that you weren't granted access to any secret information by the owner of the product's intellectual property or any partners, employees, contractors, etc. of that owner. Patent infringement is mostly a problem if you're either making money off of the information, which you definitely don't want to do, or if it can be proven you're decreasing the value of their intellectual property.



    In your car example, if the original company makes money by offering an option to remove that "electronic limiter" and you're showing people how to do it for free, you're in trouble. Otherwise, your obvious defense is that by offering people more options on what to do with their product, you may in fact be increasing the value of their intellectual property.



    This isn't my branch of law, but if you're not making any money off of it, you're not getting too much visibility of your "published information" and you're not stopping people from paying the original company to get the same modification, you're probably safe. If in doubt, contact a lawyer.






    share|improve this answer


















    • 3





      How might the DMCA factor in to this, given that so many things use computers these days?

      – mikeazo
      Dec 11 '17 at 17:42






    • 4





      It is not a violation of trade secret law to reverse engineer the secret from the trade secret owner's product. Patents are publicly available information so disclosing them is fine, it is using someone else's patent, not thwarting it that is illegal. You are not in trouble for teaching people to deactivate a patented device as claimed by Tim. DMCA might be a factor in some cases, however.

      – ohwilleke
      Dec 12 '17 at 18:18











    • Would "illegal" in the question be too strong a word? One might be liable to civil suit without violating the law. For example if the information published included copyrighted material (like copyrighted code to implement higher-speed regulator) it seems one might have liability without violating a law.

      – Burt_Harris
      Dec 15 '18 at 2:35












    • Re "...if it can be proven you're decreasing the value of their intellectual property.": this seems absurd, since virtually all good GPL or open source workalike software would be "guilty" of decreasing the value of the corresponding closed source competition.

      – agc
      Mar 28 at 5:23











    Your Answer








    StackExchange.ready(function()
    var channelOptions =
    tags: "".split(" "),
    id: "617"
    ;
    initTagRenderer("".split(" "), "".split(" "), channelOptions);

    StackExchange.using("externalEditor", function()
    // Have to fire editor after snippets, if snippets enabled
    if (StackExchange.settings.snippets.snippetsEnabled)
    StackExchange.using("snippets", function()
    createEditor();
    );

    else
    createEditor();

    );

    function createEditor()
    StackExchange.prepareEditor(
    heartbeatType: 'answer',
    autoActivateHeartbeat: false,
    convertImagesToLinks: false,
    noModals: true,
    showLowRepImageUploadWarning: true,
    reputationToPostImages: null,
    bindNavPrevention: true,
    postfix: "",
    imageUploader:
    brandingHtml: "Powered by u003ca class="icon-imgur-white" href="https://imgur.com/"u003eu003c/au003e",
    contentPolicyHtml: "User contributions licensed under u003ca href="https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/3.0/"u003ecc by-sa 3.0 with attribution requiredu003c/au003e u003ca href="https://stackoverflow.com/legal/content-policy"u003e(content policy)u003c/au003e",
    allowUrls: true
    ,
    noCode: true, onDemand: true,
    discardSelector: ".discard-answer"
    ,immediatelyShowMarkdownHelp:true
    );



    );













    draft saved

    draft discarded


















    StackExchange.ready(
    function ()
    StackExchange.openid.initPostLogin('.new-post-login', 'https%3a%2f%2flaw.stackexchange.com%2fquestions%2f24690%2fis-it-illegal-to-publicly-share-technical-information-discovered-by-tinkering-i%23new-answer', 'question_page');

    );

    Post as a guest















    Required, but never shown

























    2 Answers
    2






    active

    oldest

    votes








    2 Answers
    2






    active

    oldest

    votes









    active

    oldest

    votes






    active

    oldest

    votes









    0














    In my opinion, you are totally free to publish the information.



    There are two areas of law that can be cosidered - private and public law.



    In the private law area, you can be liable for revealing trade secrets, but only if you agreed to keep them by a contract. Trade secrets do not exist by themselves (there are minor exceptions, eg. in competition law, but those do not concern us), they must be protected by contracts. Another private limitations, like libel laws, won't apply here.
    This is not uncommon, but not in cars - you can find clauses like these in software license agreements.



    Then there is the public area. Is there any regulation, any policy of the state, that prevents you from publishing it? I am not aware you whole legal code of your state, but I doubt there is. It would be a harsh limitation of freedom of speech. Even if the modification could lead to illegal effect (like, modifying toy weapon to kill by rising its power...) it would be only illegal under very rare circumstances.



    To conclude it - freedom of speech can be limited only if there is sufficient public interest to do so, and I don't see any.






    share|improve this answer



























      0














      In my opinion, you are totally free to publish the information.



      There are two areas of law that can be cosidered - private and public law.



      In the private law area, you can be liable for revealing trade secrets, but only if you agreed to keep them by a contract. Trade secrets do not exist by themselves (there are minor exceptions, eg. in competition law, but those do not concern us), they must be protected by contracts. Another private limitations, like libel laws, won't apply here.
      This is not uncommon, but not in cars - you can find clauses like these in software license agreements.



      Then there is the public area. Is there any regulation, any policy of the state, that prevents you from publishing it? I am not aware you whole legal code of your state, but I doubt there is. It would be a harsh limitation of freedom of speech. Even if the modification could lead to illegal effect (like, modifying toy weapon to kill by rising its power...) it would be only illegal under very rare circumstances.



      To conclude it - freedom of speech can be limited only if there is sufficient public interest to do so, and I don't see any.






      share|improve this answer

























        0












        0








        0







        In my opinion, you are totally free to publish the information.



        There are two areas of law that can be cosidered - private and public law.



        In the private law area, you can be liable for revealing trade secrets, but only if you agreed to keep them by a contract. Trade secrets do not exist by themselves (there are minor exceptions, eg. in competition law, but those do not concern us), they must be protected by contracts. Another private limitations, like libel laws, won't apply here.
        This is not uncommon, but not in cars - you can find clauses like these in software license agreements.



        Then there is the public area. Is there any regulation, any policy of the state, that prevents you from publishing it? I am not aware you whole legal code of your state, but I doubt there is. It would be a harsh limitation of freedom of speech. Even if the modification could lead to illegal effect (like, modifying toy weapon to kill by rising its power...) it would be only illegal under very rare circumstances.



        To conclude it - freedom of speech can be limited only if there is sufficient public interest to do so, and I don't see any.






        share|improve this answer













        In my opinion, you are totally free to publish the information.



        There are two areas of law that can be cosidered - private and public law.



        In the private law area, you can be liable for revealing trade secrets, but only if you agreed to keep them by a contract. Trade secrets do not exist by themselves (there are minor exceptions, eg. in competition law, but those do not concern us), they must be protected by contracts. Another private limitations, like libel laws, won't apply here.
        This is not uncommon, but not in cars - you can find clauses like these in software license agreements.



        Then there is the public area. Is there any regulation, any policy of the state, that prevents you from publishing it? I am not aware you whole legal code of your state, but I doubt there is. It would be a harsh limitation of freedom of speech. Even if the modification could lead to illegal effect (like, modifying toy weapon to kill by rising its power...) it would be only illegal under very rare circumstances.



        To conclude it - freedom of speech can be limited only if there is sufficient public interest to do so, and I don't see any.







        share|improve this answer












        share|improve this answer



        share|improve this answer










        answered Sep 19 '18 at 21:22









        MikiRavenMikiRaven

        1144




        1144





















            -1














            I think it depends on whether you can be accused of revealing trade secrets or violating patents, as this kind of thing usually turns into an intellectual property battle.



            Generally, you'd be protected from trade secret litigation if it can be shown that you discovered your secret modification on your own, and that you weren't granted access to any secret information by the owner of the product's intellectual property or any partners, employees, contractors, etc. of that owner. Patent infringement is mostly a problem if you're either making money off of the information, which you definitely don't want to do, or if it can be proven you're decreasing the value of their intellectual property.



            In your car example, if the original company makes money by offering an option to remove that "electronic limiter" and you're showing people how to do it for free, you're in trouble. Otherwise, your obvious defense is that by offering people more options on what to do with their product, you may in fact be increasing the value of their intellectual property.



            This isn't my branch of law, but if you're not making any money off of it, you're not getting too much visibility of your "published information" and you're not stopping people from paying the original company to get the same modification, you're probably safe. If in doubt, contact a lawyer.






            share|improve this answer


















            • 3





              How might the DMCA factor in to this, given that so many things use computers these days?

              – mikeazo
              Dec 11 '17 at 17:42






            • 4





              It is not a violation of trade secret law to reverse engineer the secret from the trade secret owner's product. Patents are publicly available information so disclosing them is fine, it is using someone else's patent, not thwarting it that is illegal. You are not in trouble for teaching people to deactivate a patented device as claimed by Tim. DMCA might be a factor in some cases, however.

              – ohwilleke
              Dec 12 '17 at 18:18











            • Would "illegal" in the question be too strong a word? One might be liable to civil suit without violating the law. For example if the information published included copyrighted material (like copyrighted code to implement higher-speed regulator) it seems one might have liability without violating a law.

              – Burt_Harris
              Dec 15 '18 at 2:35












            • Re "...if it can be proven you're decreasing the value of their intellectual property.": this seems absurd, since virtually all good GPL or open source workalike software would be "guilty" of decreasing the value of the corresponding closed source competition.

              – agc
              Mar 28 at 5:23















            -1














            I think it depends on whether you can be accused of revealing trade secrets or violating patents, as this kind of thing usually turns into an intellectual property battle.



            Generally, you'd be protected from trade secret litigation if it can be shown that you discovered your secret modification on your own, and that you weren't granted access to any secret information by the owner of the product's intellectual property or any partners, employees, contractors, etc. of that owner. Patent infringement is mostly a problem if you're either making money off of the information, which you definitely don't want to do, or if it can be proven you're decreasing the value of their intellectual property.



            In your car example, if the original company makes money by offering an option to remove that "electronic limiter" and you're showing people how to do it for free, you're in trouble. Otherwise, your obvious defense is that by offering people more options on what to do with their product, you may in fact be increasing the value of their intellectual property.



            This isn't my branch of law, but if you're not making any money off of it, you're not getting too much visibility of your "published information" and you're not stopping people from paying the original company to get the same modification, you're probably safe. If in doubt, contact a lawyer.






            share|improve this answer


















            • 3





              How might the DMCA factor in to this, given that so many things use computers these days?

              – mikeazo
              Dec 11 '17 at 17:42






            • 4





              It is not a violation of trade secret law to reverse engineer the secret from the trade secret owner's product. Patents are publicly available information so disclosing them is fine, it is using someone else's patent, not thwarting it that is illegal. You are not in trouble for teaching people to deactivate a patented device as claimed by Tim. DMCA might be a factor in some cases, however.

              – ohwilleke
              Dec 12 '17 at 18:18











            • Would "illegal" in the question be too strong a word? One might be liable to civil suit without violating the law. For example if the information published included copyrighted material (like copyrighted code to implement higher-speed regulator) it seems one might have liability without violating a law.

              – Burt_Harris
              Dec 15 '18 at 2:35












            • Re "...if it can be proven you're decreasing the value of their intellectual property.": this seems absurd, since virtually all good GPL or open source workalike software would be "guilty" of decreasing the value of the corresponding closed source competition.

              – agc
              Mar 28 at 5:23













            -1












            -1








            -1







            I think it depends on whether you can be accused of revealing trade secrets or violating patents, as this kind of thing usually turns into an intellectual property battle.



            Generally, you'd be protected from trade secret litigation if it can be shown that you discovered your secret modification on your own, and that you weren't granted access to any secret information by the owner of the product's intellectual property or any partners, employees, contractors, etc. of that owner. Patent infringement is mostly a problem if you're either making money off of the information, which you definitely don't want to do, or if it can be proven you're decreasing the value of their intellectual property.



            In your car example, if the original company makes money by offering an option to remove that "electronic limiter" and you're showing people how to do it for free, you're in trouble. Otherwise, your obvious defense is that by offering people more options on what to do with their product, you may in fact be increasing the value of their intellectual property.



            This isn't my branch of law, but if you're not making any money off of it, you're not getting too much visibility of your "published information" and you're not stopping people from paying the original company to get the same modification, you're probably safe. If in doubt, contact a lawyer.






            share|improve this answer













            I think it depends on whether you can be accused of revealing trade secrets or violating patents, as this kind of thing usually turns into an intellectual property battle.



            Generally, you'd be protected from trade secret litigation if it can be shown that you discovered your secret modification on your own, and that you weren't granted access to any secret information by the owner of the product's intellectual property or any partners, employees, contractors, etc. of that owner. Patent infringement is mostly a problem if you're either making money off of the information, which you definitely don't want to do, or if it can be proven you're decreasing the value of their intellectual property.



            In your car example, if the original company makes money by offering an option to remove that "electronic limiter" and you're showing people how to do it for free, you're in trouble. Otherwise, your obvious defense is that by offering people more options on what to do with their product, you may in fact be increasing the value of their intellectual property.



            This isn't my branch of law, but if you're not making any money off of it, you're not getting too much visibility of your "published information" and you're not stopping people from paying the original company to get the same modification, you're probably safe. If in doubt, contact a lawyer.







            share|improve this answer












            share|improve this answer



            share|improve this answer










            answered Dec 11 '17 at 13:13









            TimTim

            252




            252







            • 3





              How might the DMCA factor in to this, given that so many things use computers these days?

              – mikeazo
              Dec 11 '17 at 17:42






            • 4





              It is not a violation of trade secret law to reverse engineer the secret from the trade secret owner's product. Patents are publicly available information so disclosing them is fine, it is using someone else's patent, not thwarting it that is illegal. You are not in trouble for teaching people to deactivate a patented device as claimed by Tim. DMCA might be a factor in some cases, however.

              – ohwilleke
              Dec 12 '17 at 18:18











            • Would "illegal" in the question be too strong a word? One might be liable to civil suit without violating the law. For example if the information published included copyrighted material (like copyrighted code to implement higher-speed regulator) it seems one might have liability without violating a law.

              – Burt_Harris
              Dec 15 '18 at 2:35












            • Re "...if it can be proven you're decreasing the value of their intellectual property.": this seems absurd, since virtually all good GPL or open source workalike software would be "guilty" of decreasing the value of the corresponding closed source competition.

              – agc
              Mar 28 at 5:23












            • 3





              How might the DMCA factor in to this, given that so many things use computers these days?

              – mikeazo
              Dec 11 '17 at 17:42






            • 4





              It is not a violation of trade secret law to reverse engineer the secret from the trade secret owner's product. Patents are publicly available information so disclosing them is fine, it is using someone else's patent, not thwarting it that is illegal. You are not in trouble for teaching people to deactivate a patented device as claimed by Tim. DMCA might be a factor in some cases, however.

              – ohwilleke
              Dec 12 '17 at 18:18











            • Would "illegal" in the question be too strong a word? One might be liable to civil suit without violating the law. For example if the information published included copyrighted material (like copyrighted code to implement higher-speed regulator) it seems one might have liability without violating a law.

              – Burt_Harris
              Dec 15 '18 at 2:35












            • Re "...if it can be proven you're decreasing the value of their intellectual property.": this seems absurd, since virtually all good GPL or open source workalike software would be "guilty" of decreasing the value of the corresponding closed source competition.

              – agc
              Mar 28 at 5:23







            3




            3





            How might the DMCA factor in to this, given that so many things use computers these days?

            – mikeazo
            Dec 11 '17 at 17:42





            How might the DMCA factor in to this, given that so many things use computers these days?

            – mikeazo
            Dec 11 '17 at 17:42




            4




            4





            It is not a violation of trade secret law to reverse engineer the secret from the trade secret owner's product. Patents are publicly available information so disclosing them is fine, it is using someone else's patent, not thwarting it that is illegal. You are not in trouble for teaching people to deactivate a patented device as claimed by Tim. DMCA might be a factor in some cases, however.

            – ohwilleke
            Dec 12 '17 at 18:18





            It is not a violation of trade secret law to reverse engineer the secret from the trade secret owner's product. Patents are publicly available information so disclosing them is fine, it is using someone else's patent, not thwarting it that is illegal. You are not in trouble for teaching people to deactivate a patented device as claimed by Tim. DMCA might be a factor in some cases, however.

            – ohwilleke
            Dec 12 '17 at 18:18













            Would "illegal" in the question be too strong a word? One might be liable to civil suit without violating the law. For example if the information published included copyrighted material (like copyrighted code to implement higher-speed regulator) it seems one might have liability without violating a law.

            – Burt_Harris
            Dec 15 '18 at 2:35






            Would "illegal" in the question be too strong a word? One might be liable to civil suit without violating the law. For example if the information published included copyrighted material (like copyrighted code to implement higher-speed regulator) it seems one might have liability without violating a law.

            – Burt_Harris
            Dec 15 '18 at 2:35














            Re "...if it can be proven you're decreasing the value of their intellectual property.": this seems absurd, since virtually all good GPL or open source workalike software would be "guilty" of decreasing the value of the corresponding closed source competition.

            – agc
            Mar 28 at 5:23





            Re "...if it can be proven you're decreasing the value of their intellectual property.": this seems absurd, since virtually all good GPL or open source workalike software would be "guilty" of decreasing the value of the corresponding closed source competition.

            – agc
            Mar 28 at 5:23

















            draft saved

            draft discarded
















































            Thanks for contributing an answer to Law Stack Exchange!


            • Please be sure to answer the question. Provide details and share your research!

            But avoid


            • Asking for help, clarification, or responding to other answers.

            • Making statements based on opinion; back them up with references or personal experience.

            To learn more, see our tips on writing great answers.




            draft saved


            draft discarded














            StackExchange.ready(
            function ()
            StackExchange.openid.initPostLogin('.new-post-login', 'https%3a%2f%2flaw.stackexchange.com%2fquestions%2f24690%2fis-it-illegal-to-publicly-share-technical-information-discovered-by-tinkering-i%23new-answer', 'question_page');

            );

            Post as a guest















            Required, but never shown





















































            Required, but never shown














            Required, but never shown












            Required, but never shown







            Required, but never shown

































            Required, but never shown














            Required, but never shown












            Required, but never shown







            Required, but never shown







            Popular posts from this blog

            Are there any AGPL-style licences that require source code modifications to be public? Planned maintenance scheduled April 23, 2019 at 23:30 UTC (7:30pm US/Eastern) Announcing the arrival of Valued Associate #679: Cesar Manara Unicorn Meta Zoo #1: Why another podcast?Force derivative works to be publicAre there any GPL like licenses for Apple App Store?Do you violate the GPL if you provide source code that cannot be compiled?GPL - is it distribution to use libraries in an appliance loaned to customers?Distributing App for free which uses GPL'ed codeModifications of server software under GPL, with web/CLI interfaceDoes using an AGPLv3-licensed library prevent me from dual-licensing my own source code?Can I publish only select code under GPLv3 from a private project?Is there published precedent regarding the scope of covered work that uses AGPL software?If MIT licensed code links to GPL licensed code what should be the license of the resulting binary program?If I use a public API endpoint that has its source code licensed under AGPL in my app, do I need to disclose my source?

            2013 GY136 Descoberta | Órbita | Referências Menu de navegação«List Of Centaurs and Scattered-Disk Objects»«List of Known Trans-Neptunian Objects»

            Mortes em março de 2019 Referências Menu de navegação«Zhores Alferov, Nobel de Física bielorrusso, morre aos 88 anos - Ciência»«Fallece Rafael Torija, o bispo emérito de Ciudad Real»«Peter Hurford dies at 88»«Keith Flint, vocalista do The Prodigy, morre aos 49 anos»«Luke Perry, ator de 'Barrados no baile' e 'Riverdale', morre aos 52 anos»«Former Rangers and Scotland captain Eric Caldow dies, aged 84»«Morreu, aos 61 anos, a antiga lenda do wrestling King Kong Bundy»«Fallece el actor y director teatral Abraham Stavans»«In Memoriam Guillaume Faye»«Sidney Sheinberg, a Force Behind Universal and Spielberg, Is Dead at 84»«Carmine Persico, Colombo Crime Family Boss, Is Dead at 85»«Dirigent Michael Gielen gestorben»«Ciclista tricampeã mundial e prata na Rio 2016 é encontrada morta em casa aos 23 anos»«Pagan Community Notes: Raven Grimassi dies, Indianapolis pop-up event cancelled, Circle Sanctuary announces new podcast, and more!»«Hal Blaine, Wrecking Crew Drummer, Dies at 90»«Morre Coutinho, que editou dupla lendária com Pelé no Santos»«Cantor Demétrius, ídolo da Jovem Guarda, morre em SP»«Ex-presidente do Vasco, Eurico Miranda morre no Rio de Janeiro»«Bronze no Mundial de basquete de 1971, Laís Elena morre aos 76 anos»«Diretor de Corridas da F1, Charlie Whiting morre aos 66 anos às vésperas do GP da Austrália»«Morreu o cardeal Danneels, da Bélgica»«Morreu o cartoonista Augusto Cid»«Morreu a atriz Maria Isabel de Lizandra, de "Vale Tudo" e novelas da Tupi»«WS Merwin, prize-winning poet of nature, dies at 91»«Atriz Márcia Real morre em São Paulo aos 88 anos»«Mauritanie: décès de l'ancien président Mohamed Mahmoud ould Louly»«Morreu Dick Dale, o rei da surf guitar e de "Pulp Fiction"»«Falleció Víctor Genes»«João Carlos Marinho, autor de 'O Gênio do Crime', morre em SP»«Legendary Horror Director and SFX Artist John Carl Buechler Dies at 66»«Morre em Salvador a religiosa Makota Valdina»«مرگ بازیکن‌ سابق نساجی بر اثر سقوط سنگ در مازندران»«Domingos Oliveira morre no Rio»«Morre Airton Ravagniani, ex-São Paulo, Fla, Vasco, Grêmio e Sport - Notícias»«Morre o escritor Flavio Moreira da Costa»«Larry Cohen, Writer-Director of 'It's Alive' and 'Hell Up in Harlem,' Dies at 77»«Scott Walker, experimental singer-songwriter, dead at 76»«Joseph Pilato, Day of the Dead Star and Horror Favorite, Dies at 70»«Sheffield United set to pay tribute to legendary goalkeeper Ted Burgin who has died at 91»«Morre Rafael Henzel, sobrevivente de acidente aéreo da Chapecoense»«Morre Valery Bykovsky, um dos primeiros cosmonautas da União Soviética»«Agnès Varda, cineasta da Nouvelle Vague, morre aos 90 anos»«Agnès Varda, cineasta francesa, morre aos 90 anos»«Tania Mallet, James Bond Actress and Helen Mirren's Cousin, Dies at 77»e