Hacker News Board Hacker News, browsed like a classic message board
Live data from Hacker News

“Stop reverse engineering our code”

blogs.oracle.com

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

201–210 of 358 posts

Re: “Stop reverse engineering our code”

#201

Post by jaawn »

wvenable wrote: post #189
jaawn wrote: post #162

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I think there may be a language barrier here. So, this should clear it up: The only definition of "reverse engineering software" that I use is this -- "Using tools and deep binary analysis to take a compiled binary, and convert it back to source code as close to the original as possible". It is a very specific definition. I do not mean general "analysis" or vulnerability testing or input manipulation, etc... only att…

> The only definition of "reverse engineering software" that I use is this That's the definition of decompiling not reverse engineering. The original IBM BIOS was reverse engineered by two teams: one which read the disassembled binary and wrote a written specification and a second team that took that specification and wrote code.

What you just described agrees with my definition. The ultimate goal of both teams was to end up with usable source code that is likely to be close or identical to the original used to create the binary. There is a slight difference in the IBM BIOS project in that, I think the goal was to create code which could not be claimed to infringe on the patents/copyrights of IBM. That last bit is an extension of reverse engineering, i.e. they reverse-engineered the binary (which took both decompilation and analysis) in order to create code which matched the same specification and wasn't outright "copied".

See the previous reply I made for links to discussion of what is usually meant by (software) "reverse engineering." But, like I said before, there probably is no "universally correct" definition, I am only describing it so that my previous comments can be understood fully.

Re: “Stop reverse engineering our code”

#202

Post by victorNicollet »

DarkIye wrote: post #181
jtreminio wrote: post #178

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> to the tune of $1.5 x 10^8 USD Was it really necessary to type it like that?

For general sanity: $150,000,000

To be pedantic, 1.5e8 carries additional information about accuracy: $150,000,000 ± $5,000,000. By contrast, 1.50e8 would be ten times as accurate, and so on.

Of course, accuracy is hardly relevant here.

Re: “Stop reverse engineering our code”

#204

Post by Retric »

greggyb wrote: post #195
bunderbunder wrote: post #184

Earlier quoted context omitted.

According to the very Wikipedia article you link, Standard Oil was found guilty of anticompetitive actions. Note that monopolistic behavior does not necessarily imply rising prices. See: Wal-Mart. Also see this quote from that Wikipedia article again: "The evidence is, in fact, absolutely conclusive that the Standard Oil Co. charges altogether excessive prices where it meets no competition, and particularly where the…

I believe we are going to be at an impasse here, but the quote you extracted illustrates the point I made, that Standard Oil acted as a competitive firm. We expect to see profit driven to zero in a competitive market, and that is what we saw in Standard Oil's pricing. In cases where there was little competition, that clearly indicates an area where the costs of the trade were such that the market price would be highe…

profit driven to zero in a competitive market

No, if profit is close to zero then there would be no point in being in a market. Markets drive profits to the 'standard' risk adjusted ROI for the economy they operate in. In other words if you could run a gas station, a book store, a flower shop, or whatever, then you do whichever one gives the most profits.

Re: “Stop reverse engineering our code”

#205

Post by dr_zoidberg »

juliangregorian wrote: post #42
Stratoscope wrote: post #37

> Q. If you don’t let customers reverse engineer code, they won’t buy anything else from you. > A. I actually heard this from a customer. It was ironic because in order for them to buy more products from us (or use a cloud service offering), they’d have to sign – a license agreement! With the same terms that the customer had already admitted violating. “Honey, if you won’t let me cheat on you again, our marriage is t…

The scorn for customers in general is palpable. Why is Oracle even allowing this person to be a voice for their brand?

Considering the post is down, maybe they've "done something about it" already.

Re: “Stop reverse engineering our code”

#207

Post by kuschku »

pluma wrote: post #172
kuschku wrote: post #74

Earlier quoted context omitted.

In German law, clauses that forbid reverse engineering are invalid, the contract itself still stays valid, though. UhrG Paragraph 95 and 69

Don't some types of contract require a CYA clause along the lines of "if any part of this contract is invalid, the contract only covers those parts that are valid", though? I'm not sure whether this is just voodoo or whether those contracts would otherwise be nullified as soon as you point out any single clause is actually invalid.

Yes, a Salvatorian Clause is normally necessary, but this law was specifically written saying that the clause in the contract just doesn’t apply. The rest of the contract stays valid.

The "Do not break DRM" on Computer Software is equally invalid. (Warning: the "Do not break DRM" on music and video is a criminal offense on the other hand).

DISCLAIMER: I am not a lawyer, this is not legal advice, if you consider to use this as defense in a court, you might want to consider getting an attorney. Details can matter depending on your jurisdiction.

Re: “Stop reverse engineering our code”

#208

Post by greggyb »

Retric wrote: post #204
greggyb wrote: post #195

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I believe we are going to be at an impasse here, but the quote you extracted illustrates the point I made, that Standard Oil acted as a competitive firm. We expect to see profit driven to zero in a competitive market, and that is what we saw in Standard Oil's pricing. In cases where there was little competition, that clearly indicates an area where the costs of the trade were such that the market price would be highe…

profit driven to zero in a competitive market No, if profit is close to zero then there would be no point in being in a market. Markets drive profits to the 'standard' risk adjusted ROI for the economy they operate in. In other words if you could run a gas station, a book store, a flower shop, or whatever, then you do whichever one gives the most profits.

If we're going to get into definitions, we can do that.

Since we are discussing economics, I do not feel the need to preface every use of jargon with disclaimers, though I can.

The relevant portion of Wikipedia's entry on (economics jargon) profit: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Profit_%28economics%29#In_comp...

You can confirm this concept in any economics text. (economics jargon) Profit is driven to zero in a (economics jargon) competitive (economics jargon) market.

Re: “Stop reverse engineering our code”

#209

Post by dr_zoidberg »

While I admit that I didn't read the whole post (to me it was a wall of text full of complaints going around the same point, always saying the same without too much variation), I really don't get this obsession with reverse engineering. Yes, their license agreement states that it can't be done. But you deploy code, executable code, but still code. Code that people can understand, if they go through the process of analyzing it.

While I don't endorse breaking the agreement (which was properly signed and "celebrated", as lawyers say), I find it funny in the first place that they're selling a glass container and say "you can't look into it, just use it".

I prefer the honesty of free software/open source projects that sell customer support to this business model (which is also adopted by others, not just Oracle). However, if I were already bound to it, and couldn't pay the cost of migration, I understand I'd have to stick with it.

It's also amusing that people/organizations seriously believe they can reverse engineer something as complex as a database engine and "fix it" without acces to the diagramas, docs, tests, source code, build environment, etc.

Re: “Stop reverse engineering our code”

#210

Post by greggyb »

rm_-rf_slash wrote: post #200
greggyb wrote: post #195

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I believe we are going to be at an impasse here, but the quote you extracted illustrates the point I made, that Standard Oil acted as a competitive firm. We expect to see profit driven to zero in a competitive market, and that is what we saw in Standard Oil's pricing. In cases where there was little competition, that clearly indicates an area where the costs of the trade were such that the market price would be highe…

I think we're going on the wrong track. What I meant was that Rockefeller and Ellison both show that wealth doesn't always come from producing value, but can also be made by abusing market dominance. Arguing the nuances of Standard Oil's behavior is a moot point when the Supreme Court settled that issue in 1911.

I'll go out on a limb here and assume that you agree just as vehemently with the ruling in Citizens United?
Post reply on HN