Hacker News Reader

Comment by phkahler | Hacker News Reader

Does anyone see the blatant hypocrisy in this case?

"We reverse engineered your product and made something to help maintain it. You better not so much as look at our product. We have a right to repair, but you don't."

View on HN

I agree that it does feel a bit paradoxical, but reversing a product for repair purposes verses reversing it for duplication are treated fundamentally differently by reasonable people. One is "right to repair" the other is "counterfeiting" or violating patents. To your statement, "We have a right to repair, but you don't" -- this clearly is not what is intended by Taylor, to repair these Kytch diagnostic tools. If that were the case, I think that would carry.

>reversing a product for repair purposes verses reversing it for duplication

What about reverse engineering for curiosity or even posterity repair?

Also how is intent of reverse engineering determined?

It's determined by what you do next - start making a competing product, or start making a complementary product.

Or in this case, sue the company producing the device and (further) threaten your franchisees with (both litigious and economic) harm if they use the product.

IANAL but I believe reverse engineering for duplication is legal. You can't violate a patent, but trade secrets are called "secrets" because once they are out they are out. You protect secrets with NDAs so they don't get out. You're supposed to protect things that the public will see with patents if you want to protect them.

The claim is that the company makes more money from service than from the sale of the device. By having a device that makes servicing cheaper, they lose money, so they want to look at this device, update the machines to prevent this device from working, and prevent their right of repair.

Reply on news.ycombinator.com