Maybe not the best example then, but not the only example. If you unintentionally create something that resembles the original too much you may still become liable. It’s hard to draw the line, which is why many in such a position would prefer to be safe rather than sorry.

[–] bitfucker 1 points 2 days ago (1 children)

How so? People come up with the same idea all the time independently of each other. When doing clean room implementation (the ideal best case), you are not liable if what you create at the end matches 1-1 with the original. You never know anything about the implementation detail of the original. Academia also acknowledged independent discovery and publication of many things. Why would clean room implementation be different?

[–] arendjr 1 points 2 days ago (1 children)

Because coming up with the same implementation independently is legal, while copying someone else’s implementation isn’t. Which method you used to arrive at your implementation can be difficult to prove either way, which is why it’s important for implementors to be able to say they never looked at the original. It’s a legal defence, in case you ever need to stand in front of a judge or jury who will question how you arrived at yours.

[–] bitfucker 1 points 2 days ago (1 children)

That's... what I'm saying. Clean room implementation is legal. You accidentally arrive at the same conclusion independently. And yes, it is tedious to do it but it is legal.

[–] arendjr 1 points 1 day ago

Ah yes, then we are in agreement. I thought we were talking about unintentionally arriving at the same implementation after looking at the original, which is where the discussion started.