zlacker

>>andyly+(OP)
The takedown request is based on

> MNAO analyzed some of the code and determined that the code provides functionality same as what is currently in Apple App Store and Google Play App Store.

Is this really legal? Because in my mind, providing the same functionality does not violate copyright, since the actual intellectual material is new. And I don't think Mazda has a patent on the ability to control your vehicle over an API.

>>sp1rit+ga
If they just provide the same functionality, no. Mazda should lose this under Google v. Oracle. However, reverse engineering is dangerous. They surely read the copyrighted decompiled code. The test is whether the expressive elements of bdr99's implementation are substantially similar.

>>mminer+Ac
I've reverse engineered many an API, and I've never done it by decompiling the executable. Also, what's illegal about decompiling an executable?

>>stavro+Gf
They could argue that by viewing the copyrighted code/implementation, you could effectively infringe by (even subconsciously) writing the same/similar code.

There's merits to this claim if you're indeed implementing some advanced, niche algorithm but it definitely wouldn't apply here as all he's doing is calling HTTP APIs, a very generic and common thing to do.

>>Nextgr+vg
Ah, so it's not the act of disassembling that's the problem, but that you're infringing on the original code's copyright? That makes sense, thank you.

>>stavro+Zg
You may have come across this concept already, but this is where clean rooms come in.

One person views the "contaminated" decompiled code and writes a specification. A separate person writes the code based solely on the specification. This is an accepted method of demonstrating that there is no infringement.