I disagree with most of you here and tend to have more affection with the contents of the document Mr. Kimbriel noted.

Reverse engineering is quite usefull and I dare to say that without it, we would not have reached our current technological level. I have learned quite a lot during my education, but everybody will agree to have learned the most in daily practice, looking at - and into - products developped by others. This doesn't necessarily mean that specific methods and/or circuits have to be reused in ones own design: I have learned a lot about how to NOT make things by looking at designs from others, both in software and in hardware.

That doesn't mean I am in favour of bluntly copying designs, not in hardware and not in software. Using good solutions that can be enhanced or adapted, as far as copyrights or patents permit, is quite something different.

As far as the alledged legal problems one should expect in relation to this topic, it seems that things aren't that bad at all. Apparently, using unpatented techniques drawn from existing designs and re-using them in ones own designs is not prohibited, again if it is not bluntly copied.

So from my perspective there is no real reason to disencourage reverse-engineers-to-be when they simply want to learn from their works. It's all part of the game. If a particular high-tech design is to be protected against such, the ball is at the side of the manufacturer to prevent it from being hacked.