© 1999 Mark A. Haynes.

B.S.E.E., 1977, University of Texas at Austin.; J.D., 1981, Stanford Law School. Admitted to practice before the U.S. Patent and Trademark Office, 1982. The author is the founding partner of Haynes & Beffel LLP, a patent prosecution firm in Half Moon Bay, California. The author would like to thank the editorial staff of the Berkeley Technology Law Journal for their assistance.

1. See WILLIAM J. CLINTON & ALBERT GORE, JR., A FRAMEWORK FOR GLOBAL ELECTRONIC COMMERCE 3 (1997), available at <http://www.iitf.nist.gov/eleccomm/ecomm.htm>.

2. See, e.g., Diamond v. Dierh, 450 U.S. 175 (1981); In re Meyer, 688 F.2d 789 (C.C.P.A. 1982); Arrhythmia Research Tech., Inc. v. Corazonix Corp., 958 F.2d 1053 (1992).

3. See, e.g., Rodney Ho, Patents Hit Record in '98 as Tech Firms Rush to Protect Intellectual Property, WALL ST. J., Jan. 15, 1999, at A2; Jonathan M. Moses, When Copyright Law Disappoints, Software Firms Find Alternatives, WALL ST. J., May 4, 1993, at B6.

4. The Semiconductor Chip Protection Act of 1984, Pub. L. No. 98-260, 98 Stat. 3335, 3347 (codified as amended at 17 U.S.C. 901-14). The reverse engineering provision of the Act provides that it is not an infringement of the exclusive rights of the owner of a mask work for:

(1) a person to reproduce the mask work solely for the purpose of teaching, analyzing, or evaluating the concepts or techniques embodied in the mask work or the circuitry, logic flow, or organization of components used in the mask work; or

(2) a person who performs the analysis or evaluation described in paragraph (1) to incorporate the results of such conduct in an original mask work which is made to be distributed.

17 U.S.C. 906(a) (1994).

5. See, e.g., Anthony L. Clapes, Confessions of an Amicus Curiae: Technophobia, Law and the Creativity in the Digital Arts, 19 DAYTON L. REV. 903 (1994); Arthur R. Miller, Copyright Protection for Computer Programs, Databases, and Computer-Generated Works: Is Anything New Since CONTU?, 106 HARV. L. REV. 977 (1993).

6. See id.

7. See Dennis S. Karjala, Copyright Protection of Computer Documents, Reverse Engineering, and Professor Miller, 19 DAYTON L. REV. 975 (1994).

8. See Sega Enters. Ltd. v. Accolade, Inc., 977 F.2d 1510 (9th Cir. 1992); Atari Games Corp. v. Nintendo of Am., 975 F.2d 832 (Fed. Cir. 1992). See also John G. Mills, Possible Defenses to Complaints for Copyright Infringement and Reverse Engineering of Computer Software: Implications for Antitrust and I.P. Law, 80 J. PAT. & TRADEMARK OFF. SOC'Y, 101 (1998).

9. 17 U.S.C. 107 (1994).

10. See Sega Enters., 977 F.2d at 1522.

11. See Atari, 975 F.2d at 844. Note that the Federal Circuit found that Atari had exceeded the scope of that right. See id.

12. See Sega Enters., 977 F.2d at 1520-21.

13. See id. at 1521. Unlike in the Atari case, the Sega court found Accolade's intermediate copying to be a fair use. See id.

14. See Ho, supra note 3; Moses, supra note 3.

15. Pamela Samuelson et al., A Manifesto Concerning the Legal Protection of Computer Programs, 94 COLUM. L. REV. 2308, 2376 (1994).

16. See John Swinson, Copyright or Patent or Both: An Algorithmic Approach to Computer Software Protection, 5 HARV. J. L. & TECH. 145, 157 (1991).

17. See Mark A. Lemley, Antitrust and the Internet Standardization Problem, 28 CONN. L. REV. 1031, 1053-54 (1996). See also Robert H. Lande & Strugis M. Sobin, Reverse Engineering of Computer Software and Antitrust Law, 9 HARV. J. L. & TECH. 237 (1996).

18. See Luc Hatlestad, Finally Some Competition, AMD and Others are Making a Legitimate Run at Intel, THE RED HERRING, Apr. 1998, available at <http://www.redherring.com/mag/issue53/competition.html>.

19. See Tim O'Reilly, The Open Source Revolution, RELEASE 1.0, Nov. 1998.

20. Id.

21. See Brooktree Corp. v. Advanced Micro Devices, Inc., 977 F.2d 1555, 1564 (9th Cir. 1992).

22. See Brooktree Corp. v. Advanced Micro Devices, Inc., 705 F. Supp. 491, 495 (S.D. Ca. 1988).

23. U.S. CONST. art. I, 8, cl. 8.