The previous post
discussed the development of the US and European laws as applicable to reverse
engineering. This post compares the Indian provisions with the
European and US counterpart legislation.
One important aspect
is the growing number of application developers in India for the Android, iOS,
Blackberry, Windows platforms. Usually application developers do
not start development of applications from scratch. A mish-mash of
existing and new code is used. For example, all four of the platforms
discussed above provide tutorials and common libraries for their platform.
Developers then add to the existing libraries and build their unique
applications. However, developers also like to see, if possible,
existing best selling applications and their code, and apply the
teachings of the best selling applications to their application development. A recent study by Flurry analytics showed that India is a major adopter of the new platforms and there are quite a large number of application developers in India.
Section 52 of
the Indian Copyright Act follows the European Directive (or more appropriately,
the development of the European directive before its formal adoption). Certain provisions are verbatim to the
Directive, while there is marked difference in some. The provision
relevant to reverse engineering are highlighted below and compared with the
Articles in the directive / and US law:
52. Certain acts not to be infringement of copyright. (1) The
following acts shall not constitute an infringement of copyright, namely:
…"(ab) the doing of any act necessary to obtain information
essential for operating inter-operability of an independently created computer
programme with other programmes by a lawful possessor of a computer programme provided
that such information is not otherwise readily available;
(ac) the observation, study or test
of functioning of the computer programme in order to determine the ideas and
principles which underline any elements of the programme while performing such
acts necessary for the functions for which the computer programme was supplied;
Indian
law
|
EU
Directive
|
US
law
|
Section 52, paragraph ab
|
Article 6
|
Section
1201 – rule making
|
the doing of any act necessary to obtain
information essential for operating inter-operability of an independently created
computer programme with other programmes by a lawful possessor of a computer
programme provided that such information is not otherwise readily available;
|
where reproduction of the code and translation of
its form … are indispensable to obtain the information necessary to achieve the interoperability
of an independently created computer program with other programs, provided
that the following conditions are met:
(a) those acts are performed by the licensee or by
another person having a right to use a copy of a program, or on their behalf
by a person authorised to do so;
(b) the information necessary to achieve interoperability has not
previously been readily available to the persons referred to in point
(a); and
(c) those acts are confined to the parts of the
original program which are necessary in order to achieve interoperability.
|
“..(2)
Computer programs that enable wireless telephone handsets to execute software
applications, where circumvention is accomplished for the sole purpose of enabling interoperability
of such applications, when they have been lawfully obtained, with computer
programs on the telephone handset.
|
Indian
law
|
EU
Directive
|
US
law
|
Section 52, paragraph ac
|
Article 5(3)
|
Section
1201 – rule making
|
the observation, study or test of functioning of
the computer programme in order to determine the ideas and principles which underline any elements of
the programme while performing such acts necessary for the functions for
which the computer programme was supplied;
|
The person having a right to use a copy of a
computer program shall be entitled, without the authorisation of the rightholder, to
observe, study or test the functioning of the program in order to determine
the ideas and principles which underlie any element of the program if he does
so while performing any of the acts of loading, displaying, running,
transmitting or storing the program which he is entitled to do.
|
“..(2)
Computer programs that enable wireless telephone handsets to execute software
applications, where circumvention is accomplished for the sole purpose of
enabling interoperability of such applications, when they have been lawfully
obtained, with computer programs on the telephone handset.
|
Based upon
the above comparison between EU, US and Indian laws, the following conclusion
may be drawn: Indian law is much broader than
counterpart EU legislation and allows for reverse engineering (both black box
and active decompilation) without major restrictions on the reasons for
decompilation. The actual implementation
/ interpretation by courts remains to be seen.
No comments:
Post a Comment