Proprietary file formats and the law

[vwdan]

Perhaps going against the grain, but as I don't respond particularly well to bullying I'd simply respond with a "Thanks, but no thanks" and force them to make whatever move it is they're going to make. In all my years following tech, I've never seen anything that would imply they've got any sort of leverage to stop you from reading their file and, in fact, under EU (And therefore the copy pasted UK law equivalents still in place) I'd suggest you're likely specifically protected under competition regulation.

Indeed, Article 6 (https://eur-lex.europa.eu/LexUriServ...16:0022:EN:PDF) makes special mention of interoperability which was your primary purpose at the time, and this overrides any T's & C's regardless.

You don't need a licence, because what are they licensing to you? They're not providing you code, libraries, an SDK, etc - the data is your customers data, and you're reading it using your own code. They aren't providing you anything and I don't see any way whatsoever that you'd be beholden to them.

[Paralytic]

And just for fun, i checked what ChatGPT would say. First I primed it to act as a UK lawyer who specialised in intellectual property related to file formats, then pasted it your post. The response (FWIW):

As a UK solicitor with experience in intellectual property, I can provide you with the following guidance:

1. Evaluate the proposed contract: As you have already identified, the proposed contract is not favorable to your interests. The terms of the contract seem to be highly one-sided and restrictive, and there are no real benefits to you as a small business owner. The revocable clause alone is concerning, as it gives the hardware company the power to shut down your business at any time. It is important to carefully review the terms of the agreement, consider your legal position and business objectives, and seek legal advice if necessary.
2. Reverse engineering: You are correct in stating that reverse engineering is often considered legal when it is done for interoperability purposes. This is known as the interoperability exception, which allows reverse engineering of software or hardware in order to enable different products to work together. However, the specific circumstances of your case will need to be evaluated in order to determine whether the exception applies. It is important to seek legal advice on this matter.
3. Power dynamics: It is unfortunately not uncommon for larger companies to use their power and resources to crush smaller businesses. However, the law is designed to protect businesses of all sizes, and it is possible to challenge unfair practices through legal means. It is important to remember that you have rights, and you should not be afraid to assert them.
4. Seeking legal advice: I would recommend seeking the advice of a solicitor who has experience in intellectual property and contract law. They will be able to evaluate the proposed contract, assess your legal position, and provide advice on how to proceed. You can search for solicitors with this expertise on the Law Society website or through other legal directories.

Overall, it is important to approach this situation with caution and seek legal advice. While it may seem daunting, it is possible to challenge unfair practices and protect your business interests.

Point 2 might give you a further route to investigate. I asked it to tell me more about the interoperability exception.

The interoperability exception is an exception to copyright law that allows for reverse engineering of software or hardware for the purpose of achieving interoperability. Interoperability refers to the ability of different software or hardware products to work together seamlessly.

The exception allows for the reverse engineering of a software program or hardware product in order to understand how it works and to create new software or hardware products that can interoperate with it. This can be particularly important in cases where a dominant player in a market controls the proprietary format or standard, and smaller players need to interoperate with that format or standard to be competitive.

The interoperability exception is recognized under both UK and EU copyright law. However, it is not an absolute exception and has certain conditions that must be met in order to be applicable. These conditions include:

1. The purpose of the reverse engineering must be to achieve interoperability.
2. The information obtained through reverse engineering must not be used for any purpose other than achieving interoperability.
3. The reverse engineering must be conducted by someone who has lawful access to the software or hardware product.
4. The information obtained through reverse engineering must be kept confidential.
5. The use of the information obtained through reverse engineering must be fair and not unfairly prejudice the legitimate interests of the copyright owner.

It is important to note that the interoperability exception is a complex area of law, and its application can depend on the specific circumstances of each case. It is therefore important to seek legal advice if you are considering relying on this exception.

Point 3 seems quite interesting - could the other company claim you did not have lawful access to the file format?

[mattster]

I hope the above (my bolding) is not the undoing of this - I'd not have admitted there was no existing licensing agreement and would have sought advice before responding. If i felt the need to respond, I'd have stated there was a verbal agreement and put that into words for them to sign, as an indicator of the agreement you had with the previous incumbent of the role.

I don't think so - in fact if there had been an agreement that would have included implicit acknowledgement from me that there was something that needed to be licensed, and would make it easier for them to then end the arrangement.

I like your chat GPT post - must admit I was planning to give that a try myself so you saved me some time! And the results are broadly in line with what I have researched myself (over years, actually, as I suspected this moment might come).

VWDan I agree with you. In some ways I'm not that bothered by the fate of the company but I do have the arse that a mutually beneficial arrangement (make no mistake they have benefited themselves over the years) could be undone unilaterally and with no legal basis. A big part of me wants to push back and at least be somewhat annoying - and there are things I could do (perhaps as a parting gesture) that could really pee them off - e.g. making my software free or open source. Would of course need to check the legalities of that, but I would still prefer to have an amicable and (ideally) profitable outcome. Of course, there is the outside chance that there is no malicious intent and this really is all just about "house keeping" and they intend to let me keep on doing what I'm doing indefinitely..

[mattster]

Point 3 seems quite interesting - could the other company claim you did not have lawful access to the file format?

In my case this was just a copy of a file given to me by a legitimate user. I didn't even own the hardware in question at the time and had therefore not agreed to any license agreements..

[BlasterBates]

This is not straightforward. I think this will mainly depend on whether they have a patent or something similar.

https://en-academic.com/dic.nsf/enwiki/2149163

Proprietary formats are typically controlled by a private person or organization for the benefit of its applications, protected with patents or as trade secrets, and intended to give the license holder exclusive control of the technology to the (current or future) exclusion of others.^[1]Typically such restrictions attempt to prevent reverse engineering, though reverse engineering of file formats for the purposes of interoperability is generally believed to be legal by those who practice it. Legal positions differ according to each country's laws related to, among other things, software patents.

[cojak]

This is not straightforward. I think this will mainly depend on whether they have a patent or something similar.

https://en-academic.com/dic.nsf/enwiki/2149163

In any case, a small amount of money from Bigco to make it go away seems the best idea all around.

[WTFH]

In my case this was just a copy of a file given to me by a legitimate user. I didn't even own the hardware in question at the time and had therefore not agreed to any license agreements..

Did the legitimate user's agreement say they could share the file with a third party?
At any time since then have you owned any of their hardware or signed/read and of their license agreements?

[mattster]

This is not straightforward. I think this will mainly depend on whether they have a patent or something similar.

https://en-academic.com/dic.nsf/enwiki/2149163

This definitely doesn't apply here - there is nothing special about the format that could be patentable, or considered to be DMCA type copy protection which is another potential complication. In fact I'd say that other than being binary, the format is as simple and readable as you could possibly imagine it being for the data that it contains. An average IT bod would have it sussed in an afternoon if they knew roughly what kind of data is was supposed to contain and had a few example files.

[mattster]

Did the legitimate user's agreement say they could share the file with a third party?
At any time since then have you owned any of their hardware or signed/read and of their license agreements?

These are the sorts of questions I need better answers to. I can't imagine any license agreement having anything to say on the first point. Answer to second is yes, including one supplied at hefty discount by the hardware vendors themselves!

[Lance]

This definitely doesn't apply here - there is nothing special about the format that could be patentable, or considered to be DMCA type copy protection which is another potential complication. In fact I'd say that other than being binary, the format is as simple and readable as you could possibly imagine it being for the data that it contains. An average IT bod would have it sussed in an afternoon if they knew roughly what kind of data is was supposed to contain and had a few example files.

if it was patented then the format would be public knowledge anyway and therefore no need to reverse engineer it.

But if we want some actual legal stuff about file formats I'm surprised nobody has mention GIFs yet.
GIF patent expires (pinsentmasons.com)
GIF inventor made few rich, but billions happy | Reuters


PNG exists purely because of the licensing implications of GIFs.