Is it Possible to Prevent Reverse Engineering?

iddt3

Donor
Another problem with reverse engineering is when it eclipses actual innovation. Sure company/country B can produce a serviceable knockoff of company/country A's technology, but its another thing all together to transform the acquired knowledge that can compete with company/country A directly. Without independent innovation capable of understanding and expanding upon the new technological concepts, the copier will be playing an eternal game of catchup.
Pretty much this, the Soviets stole our stuff, but by the time they got it running, we were already a head again. I could see Nazi Germany trying something like this, but it would be massively counter productive. Also Nazi Germany has far less of the ideological attraction the USSR does, and would have a harder time stealing the stuff in the first place. Add to that the effect Nazi economics would have on overall innovation, and there's really no need for the Americans to try and restrict tech.
 
I can't remember where I learned this, but weren't Soviet test pilots killed by design defects that killed NATO pilots a couple years before because the Soviets were so faithful to the stolen plans without ever actually studying them?

That sounds about right. I also remember reading about the Soviets buying civilian machining equipment from the West (I distinctly remember it mentioning ball bearings) for their military.
 
Very Interesting Post.

So relating it to my two sample PODs

For Xerox PARC -even though they were two generations ahead they did not own all the processes required, and IBM even though they were behind could have duplicated the hardware. Although this raises the question What if a computer giant like the old IBM was 5 years ahead of the competitors? They basically developed everything internally.

I don't think five years is enough. This is what I mean by "what is a generation?". A five-year lead, even in a field as quickly developing as computers, is something that other engineers will admire, but understand. Give Yahoo of 2005 the software to Google Chrome and they will be able to understand and duplicate it. But on the whole, a horizontally integrated corporation is better placed to keep its secrets. I never understood the modern hostility to horizontal integration anyway - it's really a luxury born of the illusion that a well-functioning, noncorrupt environment is the norm.

American-German Cold War - Since in this scenario Europe and America would have competing industrial economies, the processes required to make a Boeing 747 or a Mercedes S-class might be scattered among dozens of companies in their respective trade blocks. This would make producing an industrial knock-off hard, if the plane, car, computer, etc. really had a big technological lead.

Probably - this was part of the problem the Warsaw Pact had. they could get Western stuff (usually without too many problems, even), but duplicating it was often a challenge. Even if they managed to get into a factory to snoop out the production processes, they would only get a small part of the whole. Trying to duplicate something like a 747 would probably still be remotely feasible without too much of a technology lag. You need good metallurgy and reliable workers, but all the structural engineering work has been done for you. But a Dreamliner or A 380 requires hundreds of proprietary processes for glues, composite materials, electronics, software and lots more stuff I have no clue about. As long as both sides are technologically roughly equal, getting your hands on such an item is useful to give your engineers a chance to figure out how their people do things. But a significant technological lead will mean that they just can't do anything much with it. I heard from an East German programmer that Robotron (their computer company) was increasingly reluctant to look at Western technology in the late 80s because there was less and less they could use, and it demoralised their staff.
 
That sounds about right. I also remember reading about the Soviets buying civilian machining equipment from the West (I distinctly remember it mentioning ball bearings) for their military.

The Leipziger Messe was the place where West German salesmen for engineering firms could meet generous buyers and accommodating young ladies for these purposes. And no, there was no prostitution in the Country of Really Existing Socialism. It was mutual generosity with a sense of class conscious patriotism. How else could a nineteen-year-old earn both a Stasi medal AND deutschmarks?
 
The Leipziger Messe was the place where West German salesmen for engineering firms could meet generous buyers and accommodating young ladies for these purposes. And no, there was no prostitution in the Country of Really Existing Socialism. It was mutual generosity with a sense of class conscious patriotism. How else could a nineteen-year-old earn both a Stasi medal AND deutschmarks?

Ah, the Stasi. Probably the only group that could give both the Gestapo of old and the KGB of new a damn good run for their money.
 
I'm not sure if it's exactly OT but I thought I would say, I figured the U.S was very protective of electronics and other hardware R&D during the Cold War which when you think about it would be natural. Carlton and Life In Black also make good points and I thought I would point them out as well. :)
 
No. Had a long discussion with my economic professor on this subject awhile back. If you are willing to use this yourself only in circumstances you control, centralize production in one spot and keep the creators locked up on a tropical island this is possible. If you actually intend to sell it, then no
Maybe in the impossible vein... What about protecting only certain critical processes? Like, the exact chemical formula of Coke...
 

AndyC

Donor
In anything where deconstruction is possible (ie not chemical processes), no. So don't focus your resources on trying - instead consider yourself to be two generations ahead of everyone else in further developing it (either by improvement, efficiency, novel applications, or mass production). You've got a two generation headstart on getting to the third generation.

You'll eventually be caught up, so use your long headstart to give yourself an advantage in the race. It's a dynamic issue, not static.
 
Pretty much this, the Soviets stole our stuff, but by the time they got it running, we were already a head again. I could see Nazi Germany trying something like this, but it would be massively counter productive. Also Nazi Germany has far less of the ideological attraction the USSR does, and would have a harder time stealing the stuff in the first place. Add to that the effect Nazi economics would have on overall innovation, and there's really no need for the Americans to try and restrict tech.

that nazi germany has less ideological attraction is probably a thought inspired by hindsight, in a true cold war i doubt if they would have less attraction thanthe ussr, after all there are bunches of anti-Semites.
second, most information is not gained from sympathizers but through people with no scruples, the information is bought from willing sellers.

as for a good illustration of the problems of copycatting is the copying of the b-29, it took the soviets years to copy, and tupolev is claimed to have said that he could have designed & built a similar plane in less time than it took to copy it.
 
Maybe in the impossible vein... What about protecting only certain critical processes? Like, the exact chemical formula of Coke...
Isn't that patented or trademarked or something?

That is actually somewhat doable as you do not need to worry about any underlying principles involved in the item, it is not a device
 
In anything where deconstruction is possible (ie not chemical processes), no.
So in my American-Nazi Cold War POD, basically every the sale of every complex item not owned as a household item would have to be restricted
What about licences on tooling? That is, you may know how a thing is made, but can't buy the tooling to do it. (There's already some of this in place, & the Sovs made great efforts to obtain tools that were restricted. Including inducing U.S. & other companies to make illegal sales.:eek:)
 
I know this is in the 'After 1900' section, but if we take a look at Meiji Japan, they pretty much have very limited access to actual prototypes of anything at the very beginning (though they are very aware that all these technology existed). They pretty much reverse-engineered their way to the modern period...and then some. It took them around 50 years to barely catch up, and another 50 to surge ahead, but they did it.

So I'd say no, you can't prevent someone from reverse engineering things, since there's always bound to be someone determined enough to figure how the device works. The arms race between software security firms and hackers and virus makers are just an example of this.
 
Surged ahead? In what fields?

Arguably cars, some electronics, trains. And they're the first country to use aircraft carriers in war.

Of course, they don't have much in terms of innovation in aviation, shipping, and weaponry for obvious reasons. But they can still reverse-engineer the heck out of these fields if they really wanted to.
 
Arguably cars, some electronics, trains.
Cars are a no-go, the Japanese have more reliable cars, but the innovation is all coming from Europe. They might also have been happier with their existing railways if the darn things had been as well planned and built as the European and American ones.

And they're the first country to use aircraft carriers in war.
Only by a matter of months, and then they reverse-engineered British ideas in the 20s. In fact looking at it, a lot of the development of aircraft carriers was done by the British, they had the first folding-wing aircraft, the first carrier with a full-length flat deck, the first carrier with a "hurricane bow" (where the bow is sealed up to the flight deck), the first carrier with an armoured flight deck (very useful before the navalisation of radar), the first test of an angled flight deck (and the first carrier to include one on the design), and the first steam catapult.

Of course, they don't have much in terms of innovation in aviation, shipping, and weaponry for obvious reasons. But they can still reverse-engineer the heck out of these fields if they really wanted to.
The ability to reverse engineer is a poor substitute when compared to the ability to innovate, since it means you're relying on other people to do your work for you.
 
Last edited:
Commercially, there is just no way to do this. Ideas can spread with one person looking at them. Even if the exact plans are not transmitted, the very look of a new item can be used to theorise on its uses.

Miltiarily, it is possible by adding a kill switch. A bomb or something. At first I was going to suggest EMP, but that would just render the technology useless as opposed to destroyed. Even inert technology can be used to reverse engineer.
 
Commercially, there is just no way to do this. Ideas can spread with one person looking at them. Even if the exact plans are not transmitted, the very look of a new item can be used to theorise on its uses.
Good point. It has not have to be exactly the same in order to do essentially the same job, witness the Mac and PC.

What is more important is whether or not you are militarily or commercially in competition with it. For example, the Zulus were the most advanced army in southern Africa and probably on par with the roman legionaries. That they were thus centuries behind the European did not matter whilst they were only fighting fellow Africans.

If you are not then it is more important what it does than what it is. (Says someone not interested in designer goods;))
 
Top