One main component of the bill is to redefine what interoperability means.
The reason we're doing that is that right now, the Copyright Act envisions interoperability as being simply between two computer programs. Think about even the example I gave in my opening remarks about a computer mouse. Your computer mouse itself doesn't have a computer program inside of it. When you plug it in, your computer recognizes an interface inside of it, so it downloads the appropriate software to the computer. It doesn't download it the mouse; it downloads it to the computer. You have a software program and then you have a mouse with a little interface or a little chip inside of it.
Then you make that comparative analysis on larger scale. In agriculture, the prime example came from a combine header. You have your main combine and then you have the header that you attach to the front of it to harvest your grain. There are many short-line manufacturers out there that only make the header. They don't make the combine, so they're looking for some certainty to be able to operate on the platform of the main OEMs.
Again, they don't put computer software into their header. There might be an interface. It is an attachment.
That's why we're redefining what interoperability means. We're also adding in the provision that's going to allow a manufacturer to circumvent a TPM for the sole purpose of making that product interoperate.
The reason the language is so important there is...obviously there is proprietary software. The manufacturers don't want access to the proprietary software. They just want to know what information—basically what ones and zeros—they are going to need to make the reel on the header turn or make the knives go back and forth to cut the crop. It's being able to send those signals. That's the information that they are looking for—what the signals are. They are not worried about the proprietary side.
The protection still exists so that even if someone were to be adversarial and try to access that proprietary software, they would be in violation of the act.