> 2008/12/28 David Poole <dpoole at marvell.com>: > >> Sounds like you would be the kind of manufacturer to publish > > > protocol > >> specs, do you plan to do that, or have you done so? > > > > Me, personally, I'd love to be able to do that. I've talked with > > my > > managers and no go. As a previous poster mentioned, our business > > types > > consider our own protocol a "strategic advantage". > > > > I've been given permission to help SANE but I must have anything I > > do > > reviewed by management first. > > Are you managers aware that your protocol was already reverse > engineered? > > http://www.sane-project.org/lists/sane-backends-cvs.html#S-HPLJM1005 > > I have had this same discussion with three different OEM's lately, > and > got three completely different responses: The first gave me full > protocol specs and access to hardware without any legal formalities > at > all. The second made me sign an NDA, but lets me talk to engineers, > and lets me give away the code. The third gives me nothing. > > The outcome for all three was the same. I wrote a sane backend for > each, one was just a little harder because I had to reverse engineer > the thing. There is, however, one crucial difference: when people ask > me what brand of scanner to buy, I don't hesitate to suggest the two > companies that were helpful, primarily because the backend performs > better due to full specs, but also as a payback to them for sticking > their collective necks out.
+1. The growing market of geeks/FOSS fans can still make a difference. > > Your situation with HP may cloud the IP waters here, but I would > suggest to your managers that they are merely reducing the value of > their advantage by locking it away. Yes it's really despering. Fran?ois.
