I think this sentence was missing a NOT:
If, as some claim and RSA disputes, the
code was reverse-engineered from object files in off-the-shelf software,
then the law was probably broken - unless RSA and other vendors decide to
test the strength of highly questionable and likely unenforceable
shrink-wrap licenses that try to prohibit disassembly/decompilation.
(But I don't have the DDJ to verify this)