News for hackers. Stuff that matters.

A comment on No Source Code == No Patent. Parent comment

Re:No Source Code == No Patent by smallstepforman on Monday April 17, 2023 @06:48AM (#35599017)
The binary executable is easily transformed into a 1:1 ratio assembly code. Assembly code is readable by humans, and the algorithm deducable. So the method is researchable to anyone wanting to investigate.

Having said that, I despise all patents, including software patents. The head start a company has should be enough to capitalise on RnD.

[ Parent | on HN ]
Re:No Source Code == No Patent by nazgulsenpai on Monday April 17, 2023 @07:00AM (#35599084)
Except when the binary executable lives on a server somewhere inaccessible, a locked-down device, behind protection mechanisms like VMProtect which actively thwart debugging/dumping, etc. Software patents apply to much more than "vanilla" fat binaries.
[ Parent | on HN ]
Re:No Source Code == No Patent by detuur on Monday April 17, 2023 @08:33AM (#35599746)
I can turn a simple A* implementation into a behemoth of self-modifying, virtualised, encrypted code that will suddenly turn into Dijkstra as soon as you try to trace its behaviour.

The time that assembly code was readable by humans is long past, and I can't afford to pay NSA-level crackers who can reverse-engineer the 60MB of executable code in the Facebook app because I have a hunch that they're violating the image processing patent I have.

[ Parent | on HN ]