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?

Multi tool use
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?
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
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.
add a comment |
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
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
add a comment |
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
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
united-states intellectual-property ixl
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
add a comment |
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
add a comment |
2 Answers
2
active
oldest
votes
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.
add a comment |
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.
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
add a comment |
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
);
);
Sign up or log in
StackExchange.ready(function ()
StackExchange.helpers.onClickDraftSave('#login-link');
);
Sign up using Google
Sign up using Facebook
Sign up using Email and Password
Post as a guest
Required, but never shown
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
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.
add a comment |
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.
add a comment |
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.
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.
answered Sep 19 '18 at 21:22
MikiRavenMikiRaven
1144
1144
add a comment |
add a comment |
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.
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
add a comment |
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.
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
add a comment |
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.
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.
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
add a comment |
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
add a comment |
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.
Sign up or log in
StackExchange.ready(function ()
StackExchange.helpers.onClickDraftSave('#login-link');
);
Sign up using Google
Sign up using Facebook
Sign up using Email and Password
Post as a guest
Required, but never shown
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
Sign up or log in
StackExchange.ready(function ()
StackExchange.helpers.onClickDraftSave('#login-link');
);
Sign up using Google
Sign up using Facebook
Sign up using Email and Password
Post as a guest
Required, but never shown
Sign up or log in
StackExchange.ready(function ()
StackExchange.helpers.onClickDraftSave('#login-link');
);
Sign up using Google
Sign up using Facebook
Sign up using Email and Password
Post as a guest
Required, but never shown
Sign up or log in
StackExchange.ready(function ()
StackExchange.helpers.onClickDraftSave('#login-link');
);
Sign up using Google
Sign up using Facebook
Sign up using Email and Password
Sign up using Google
Sign up using Facebook
Sign up using Email and Password
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
g7wbiA,v8vr IwTkf,V17IM,vs5tbvNWxrtMzNuTtp,zX DH7t,Mrl QKp3J4atYC 7dlw1FPMkPlCOyEg0R4CCXM Rh
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