[brokentone]

I agree that it does feel a bit paradoxical, but reversing a product for repair purposes verses reversing it for duplication are treated fundamentally differently by reasonable people. One is "right to repair" the other is "counterfeiting" or violating patents. To your statement, "We have a right to repair, but you don't" -- this clearly is not what is intended by Taylor, to repair these Kytch diagnostic tools. If that were the case, I think that would carry.

[s_dev]

>reversing a product for repair purposes verses reversing it for duplication

What about reverse engineering for curiosity or even posterity repair?

Also how is intent of reverse engineering determined?

[whatshisface]

It's determined by what you do next - start making a competing product, or start making a complementary product.

[phkahler]

IANAL but I believe reverse engineering for duplication is legal. You can't violate a patent, but trade secrets are called "secrets" because once they are out they are out. You protect secrets with NDAs so they don't get out. You're supposed to protect things that the public will see with patents if you want to protect them.