What is reverse engineering electronics

Forum: Microcontrollers and Digital Electronics Reverse engineering allowed?

Hello dear community! I have a few questions about "reverse engineering" or is it more or less just a gimmick -> disassembling and analyzing (for understanding) electronic devices. What does it look like when I have an electronic device in front of me. Let's take the cell phone charger as a simple example. Can I put online what knowledge I have obtained from the circuit at hand? Which components are installed, which components are connected to which - so in principle then just the circuit diagram and layout with specific component values ​​/ properties. Is that somehow protected by the manufacturer? In the wikipedia article under "Legal Aspects", it all sounds very software-related. Or are there "license conditions" for electronic devices too? All in all: How far can I go (with my publications)? (In my private life I can think of "everything".) For my part, let's take the software out of the subject (programmed µCs, etc.). Thanks in advance! Greetings PS: I will now read through the remaining threads that (hopefully) fit the topic.

in general, the respective manufacturer has all rights to the circuit, the layout, etc. so you may not publish it or have legal consequences.

I am not a lawyer, but: There are usually no license conditions, which is why only copyright usually applies (unless you have signed an NDA). How exactly this is seen with circuits, however, I don't know. I guess, as long as you don't copy that 1 to 1 :-) not much should happen. The idea behind a circuit is not protected by copyright, only the specific design, i.e. certainly the layout, probably also the exact dimensioning of the components, at least as far as it does not necessarily result. The line could also be drawn differently, jurisprudence is sometimes quite illogical and judges usually have no idea of ​​the matter :-(. The idea can be protected by a patent, but this does not prohibit the dissemination of the idea (this is even desirable, that's exactly why there are patents), but only commercial use. Jörg

The problem with circuits and also with software is: When is there a "creative" performance? I mean, I can of course have Ohm's law patented and then cash in on it.

Why don't you help him with the copying right away? By the way: there are certainly "copyrights" in electronics too. If the manufacturer finds out, it can be quite expensive!

But what if he doesn't rebuild it and sell it, just document it? Sounds unproblematic to me as a legal layman.

always this fear-mongering ... what damage should a hobby circuit do to the manufacturer of hundreds of thousands of chargers? And the paragraph riders ... do what your heart likes and be happy!

If you want to continue using a clipped circuit in your own products, you should still be careful. At least first analyze whether it is a common basic circuit, which you can of course use. In some cases, however, manufacturers also work with tricks to prove later 1: 1 replicas. For example, absurd resistance values ​​are used, such as 2.37K, although there is no reason for this in terms of the circuit. 1pF capacitors in places where none are needed and the like. Absolutely 1: 1 replicas then have to explain in case of doubt why exactly these values ​​were used in the design, etc. However: The chance of being caught is probably rather small if it is not a product whose technology is currently marking a frontal front. Jochen Müller

And you can often find the circuit diagram of such a power supply unit on the Internet ... because mostly they use the basic circuit from the data sheet for the controller circuit.

I think the respective companies would have difficulties proving to you that you have copied their circuit, as long as it is not very complicated. How do they want to prove that you didn't come up with the idea yourself. With software cracking, a few 100,000 bytes are the same and only a few are different. If you draw the circuit yourself, then the components are safely arranged differently on the paper.

> Different? Ah. Form of increase: other, different, different ... reverse engineering is standard. Just don't peddle it. ... You were of course smart enough to know the details in advance.

for the reverse engineer the following applies accordingly: Form of increase: different, different, end ...

Is there a "copyright" on the dimensioning of circuits? Are the dimensions of circuits protected by copyright? Aha? If you recreate a circuit, is there a lot of trouble ?! People, people ... If you don't know exactly and only the colleague from the work colleague from the other company mentioned something like that in the canteen, then maybe you shouldn't answer questions about the topic in the forum. 1. A manufacturer can only prevent the reproduction of circuits if he has patent protection for this circuit. What requires a certain innovation, a data sheet application is not one of them. Logical: Otherwise the first power supply builder would have won and none of the others would be able to recreate the same circuit. That this is the case can also be seen from the fact that when you buy a device you are not given a license agreement, as is the rule with software. 2. There is a copyright on circuit diagrams, layouts, service manuals, operating instructions and the like. But that can't stop you from drawing the circuit diagram of a device by hand yourself. You then have the copyright on this circuit diagram. Example: I have a defect in my hi-fi system, remove the affected circuit board, post photos on the network, draw the circuit diagram, post it and now ask for advice ... 100% legal. On the other hand, it would not be legal to post an excerpt from the service manual (copyright infringement). Another example: I lay out this circuit board myself, have it mass-produced and sell it as the "Hifinator 3000 Z". No problem as long as the original manufacturer has not received a patent on its "Super Double Class A ++" circuit, which is valid in the countries in which I want to market my product.

In general it can be said: As soon as you publish things that are based on the performance of others, you enter the area of ​​copyright infringement. It doesn't matter whether you photograph a circuit, trace it or reproduce it in whatever way. This also applies, for example, if you publish the presentation of a fellow student, classmate, work colleague, ...... under your name. That too is someone else's achievement. The other point is to what extent the copyright holder can prove this to you, or to what extent he tries. So effort in relation to the result. How that looks in detail with the many options depends entirely on the owner, public prosecutor and court.

> As soon as you publish things that are based on the performance of others,> you go into the area of ​​copyright infringement.> It does not matter whether you photograph a circuit,> redraw it, or reproduce it in whatever way. Where is that So I am not allowed to photograph my amplifier from the inside and put it on the internet? Not even from the outside? The arrangement of the buttons is also protected by copyright, right? ;) Or a photo of my car with the hood open? Someone could see what the engine looks like. Help, VW is suing me! Be careful not to jumble up copyright, utility model and patent protection! http://de.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gebrauchsmusterhttp://de.wikipedia.org/wiki/Patenthttp://de.wikipedia.org/wiki/ Copyright The copyright is NOT applicable to electronic circuits. Unless the circuit qualifies as a "sculpture" or a work of art. Why does nonsense always spread better and faster than the truth ?!

by Alexander S. (esko)

I see it just like Oliver Döring. Photos and self-painted circuit diagrams may be published. Commercial reproduction is only restricted by patents and utility models. You shouldn't let yourself be restricted by the din of the companies. In addition, you go with the opening of the CD case none A contract with the software manufacturer. Even if he claims the opposite, all versions are this License agreement void in Germany. Roland Praml wrote:> So if it is a car phone charger, then 99% of the time is the following> Circuit in it:> http://www.onsemi.com/pub_link/Collateral/MC34063A-D.PDF (page 7) With the small change that the second choke is replaced by a 1N400x and the feedback is removed afterwards.

> therefore you are not allowed to publish it or have to reckon with legal> consequences. Don't publish or just don't recreate?

@ mr.chip 1. Check whether there is patent protection for a circuit or a circuit part (you would have to modify this so that the patent is not infringed). 2. Check whether there is utility model protection for the circuit or a circuit part, the housing design or similar features and, if necessary, make a modification to your replica. 3. Do not violate any trademark rights, i.e. do not sell the part with the logo of the original manufacturer (which you certainly do not intend to do anyway)! 4. Do not violate the copyright, i.e. do not reproduce or publish any texts, images, etc. from the original manufacturer! Otherwise free rein for replicas (private or commercial) and publications. After all, there are also sites on the Internet that publish exactly what is in the current devices of the communications division (circuit board photos, chipsets), no problem at all. 5. (IMPORTANT!) Do not pay attention to people who post any scare tactics in forums, obviously not having the slightest idea of ​​the subject matter.

... and don't look out for self-appointed experts who want to issue charter for illegal things. Build a circuit from us and you will see how expensive it will be!

... everything is quark. How many people here are able to build 1000 circuits UUUNNNDDD also sell them? Everything that runs underneath is like dust under your shoes.

> Different? In some federal states, people speak like that.