Nimzovik wrote:For God's sake men!! Leave Banks alone! He is a man that follow his conscience. Do NOT fault him for that! disagree if one must. That is ok. So...let Banks have his opinion and let that be ok as well. I for one am very suspicious of those that attack those that follwow thier conscience. NUFF SAID.
+1
Graham can choose to use them or not, I don't care, as long as he isn't attacking people who disagree with him....
Or behaving like the Rybkaforum folks.
And like Don said, we could use a little moderation here.
Peter
Just because we do not announce each act of moderation does not mean we are not here moderating
moderation done in the background is far more effective then when announced like a circus side show
i have been moderating posts about the Fruit-Rybka-Ippo debate for a year now..so has Bob
the issue always invites emotional posts ..always will
Steve
Steve,
Sorry, I was just not aware of the procedure. What you say makes sense and I appreciate your hard work.
chesstango wrote:Dear Graham: I know that many engines working around , are not "officially 'recognized... As many people tell that they are clones of Fruit or whatever, i wish to know if anybody of the commercial companies has began a trial in any country to protect its rights....
Pls clear me up , because if u say that an engine is watched as clone and ilegal, why nobody (if this is true) sued them till now. And if it is the case,no sues, why do u split the spaces over this forum....
Thx
Dr Wesler
I don't believe any recent chess company has initiated legal proceedings to protect it's rights.
I don't think this implies anything however. The idea that this proves they don't believe it's a clone is really naive on your part. When a company decides to do such a thing they have to weigh the potential benefit vs the potential gain. Litigation always carries a significant potential downside and very often fails to pay for itself.
I think you must put chess software in the same league as the big corporations who commonly go to court over many things. The big corporations use litigation as a tool and weapon - it's rarely about justice. You are just extremely naive if you think it's as simple as just suing someone to protect your rights, the good guys always win, etc. You have been watching too many television shows perhaps.
Mr. Dailey,
Do you know of any chess company that saw their code stolen and distributed as freeware and did not sue?
If you had a commercial product and god forbid went through the same experience would you sue?
I would only sue after doing a cost analysis. One of the things that has to be weighed is how likely it is that you would win such a suit. Winning a suit is not that strongly correlated with whether it was actually stolen or not. It has more to do with how much you can afford to pay lawyers for the fight. A very common litigation technique is to run the other guy out of money and patience.
If someone just takes existing code and tries to resell, then it's relatively easy to make a case for that but that's rarely what happens. What a dishonest company or supposed new author would do in the case of chess is to change enough things that they can make it seem that they have some kind of valid argument that it's original code.
It's very nebulous because if I change 1 byte, I can say it's different, if I change 2 bytes it's "more different" and if I change more and more I start moving into gray areas' etc. It doesn't take much to create "reasonable doubt" in the minds of enough people to make a difference. A lot of criminals get away with things simply because we cannot prove with certainty what we know. Or valid cases are lost simply because the juries are not sophisticated enough to understand the proof, or they are just gullible. Lawyers do clever things to sway juries (or judges) that go way beyond the truth and actual facts.
This idea that if someone doesn't sue you, then you didn't do anything wrong is just utterly asinine. Any reasonable person thinks twice before suing someone because it's a painful and ugly process and in many cases it's just not worth it or it hurts you or it's a ploy to run up your costs or you risk counter suit which sometimes works against the person in the right. (Counter suit is "best defense is a strong offense" strategy and it sometimes works even when it's wrong.)
I cannot speak for the Rybka team or anyone else. I'm pretty sure that if were the author of Rybka and were confronted with the same exact situation I would not have sued. First of all, you would have to figure out WHO to sue, you would have to estimate how much this is going to cost you in terms of dollars and then you have to determine if this is really going to buy you anything. Will the party being sued be able to provide compensation for the damages done? If the party is completely anonymous, how would this be determined?
You argument is fantasy - the fact that Rybka didn't sue does not prove or disprove anything whatsoever.
I've had my software ripped off without pretense, placed on those web sites where you can download cracked software or placed on public domain sites when the software was never public domain. I didn't make any attempt to litigate, but I could have tried. By your ridiculous logic this is "proof" that I didn't believe I was actually wronged. Do you see why I just cannot respect this kind of ignorance?
I assume you don't know of any chess company that had their code stolen and did not sue.
I understand you would not sue unless a cost analysis would urge you to do it.
I hope you understand how the common people without any programming knowledge and therefore unable to judge for themselves the facts would have to rely on ethics when confronted with situations like this.
I don't know how to ethically agree with decisions based on cost analysis.
chesstango wrote:Dear Graham: I know that many engines working around , are not "officially 'recognized... As many people tell that they are clones of Fruit or whatever, i wish to know if anybody of the commercial companies has began a trial in any country to protect its rights....
Pls clear me up , because if u say that an engine is watched as clone and ilegal, why nobody (if this is true) sued them till now. And if it is the case,no sues, why do u split the spaces over this forum....
Thx
Dr Wesler
I don't believe any recent chess company has initiated legal proceedings to protect it's rights.
I don't think this implies anything however. The idea that this proves they don't believe it's a clone is really naive on your part. When a company decides to do such a thing they have to weigh the potential benefit vs the potential gain. Litigation always carries a significant potential downside and very often fails to pay for itself.
I think you must put chess software in the same league as the big corporations who commonly go to court over many things. The big corporations use litigation as a tool and weapon - it's rarely about justice. You are just extremely naive if you think it's as simple as just suing someone to protect your rights, the good guys always win, etc. You have been watching too many television shows perhaps.
Mr. Dailey,
Do you know of any chess company that saw their code stolen and distributed as freeware and did not sue?
If you had a commercial product and god forbid went through the same experience would you sue?
I would only sue after doing a cost analysis. One of the things that has to be weighed is how likely it is that you would win such a suit. Winning a suit is not that strongly correlated with whether it was actually stolen or not. It has more to do with how much you can afford to pay lawyers for the fight. A very common litigation technique is to run the other guy out of money and patience.
If someone just takes existing code and tries to resell, then it's relatively easy to make a case for that but that's rarely what happens. What a dishonest company or supposed new author would do in the case of chess is to change enough things that they can make it seem that they have some kind of valid argument that it's original code.
It's very nebulous because if I change 1 byte, I can say it's different, if I change 2 bytes it's "more different" and if I change more and more I start moving into gray areas' etc. It doesn't take much to create "reasonable doubt" in the minds of enough people to make a difference. A lot of criminals get away with things simply because we cannot prove with certainty what we know. Or valid cases are lost simply because the juries are not sophisticated enough to understand the proof, or they are just gullible. Lawyers do clever things to sway juries (or judges) that go way beyond the truth and actual facts.
This idea that if someone doesn't sue you, then you didn't do anything wrong is just utterly asinine. Any reasonable person thinks twice before suing someone because it's a painful and ugly process and in many cases it's just not worth it or it hurts you or it's a ploy to run up your costs or you risk counter suit which sometimes works against the person in the right. (Counter suit is "best defense is a strong offense" strategy and it sometimes works even when it's wrong.)
I cannot speak for the Rybka team or anyone else. I'm pretty sure that if were the author of Rybka and were confronted with the same exact situation I would not have sued. First of all, you would have to figure out WHO to sue, you would have to estimate how much this is going to cost you in terms of dollars and then you have to determine if this is really going to buy you anything. Will the party being sued be able to provide compensation for the damages done? If the party is completely anonymous, how would this be determined?
You argument is fantasy - the fact that Rybka didn't sue does not prove or disprove anything whatsoever.
I've had my software ripped off without pretense, placed on those web sites where you can download cracked software or placed on public domain sites when the software was never public domain. I didn't make any attempt to litigate, but I could have tried. By your ridiculous logic this is "proof" that I didn't believe I was actually wronged. Do you see why I just cannot respect this kind of ignorance?
I assume you don't know of any chess company that had their code stolen and did not sue.
Yes, myself.
I understand you would not sue unless a cost analysis would urge you to do it.
I hope you understand how the common people without any programming knowledge and therefore unable to judge for themselves the facts would have to rely on ethics when confronted with situations like this.
I don't know how to ethically agree with decisions based on cost analysis.
Based on your comments, I wonder what this thread is really about. Is this an issue where people are feeling guilty about using these clones and want to really know if it's ok or not? Or is it something else? If you read carefully you see a lot of this is philosophical and/or political. It depends of course on who is posting but in one line of reasoning the sentiment is that us good and hard working people are being victimized by the evil giant corporations (rybka) who are holding back good things from the common man.
I personally believe that the rating agencies are being pressured to "legitimize" these clones against their wishes (in the name of freedom, we should force people to do things they don't want to do.)
Why not just leave it alone and make your own decision for yourself and let everyone else make their own decisions for themselves?
chesstango wrote:Dear Graham: I know that many engines working around , are not "officially 'recognized... As many people tell that they are clones of Fruit or whatever, i wish to know if anybody of the commercial companies has began a trial in any country to protect its rights....
Pls clear me up , because if u say that an engine is watched as clone and ilegal, why nobody (if this is true) sued them till now. And if it is the case,no sues, why do u split the spaces over this forum....
Thx
Dr Wesler
I don't believe any recent chess company has initiated legal proceedings to protect it's rights.
I don't think this implies anything however. The idea that this proves they don't believe it's a clone is really naive on your part. When a company decides to do such a thing they have to weigh the potential benefit vs the potential gain. Litigation always carries a significant potential downside and very often fails to pay for itself.
I think you must put chess software in the same league as the big corporations who commonly go to court over many things. The big corporations use litigation as a tool and weapon - it's rarely about justice. You are just extremely naive if you think it's as simple as just suing someone to protect your rights, the good guys always win, etc. You have been watching too many television shows perhaps.
Mr. Dailey,
Do you know of any chess company that saw their code stolen and distributed as freeware and did not sue?
If you had a commercial product and god forbid went through the same experience would you sue?
I would only sue after doing a cost analysis. One of the things that has to be weighed is how likely it is that you would win such a suit. Winning a suit is not that strongly correlated with whether it was actually stolen or not. It has more to do with how much you can afford to pay lawyers for the fight. A very common litigation technique is to run the other guy out of money and patience.
If someone just takes existing code and tries to resell, then it's relatively easy to make a case for that but that's rarely what happens. What a dishonest company or supposed new author would do in the case of chess is to change enough things that they can make it seem that they have some kind of valid argument that it's original code.
It's very nebulous because if I change 1 byte, I can say it's different, if I change 2 bytes it's "more different" and if I change more and more I start moving into gray areas' etc. It doesn't take much to create "reasonable doubt" in the minds of enough people to make a difference. A lot of criminals get away with things simply because we cannot prove with certainty what we know. Or valid cases are lost simply because the juries are not sophisticated enough to understand the proof, or they are just gullible. Lawyers do clever things to sway juries (or judges) that go way beyond the truth and actual facts.
This idea that if someone doesn't sue you, then you didn't do anything wrong is just utterly asinine. Any reasonable person thinks twice before suing someone because it's a painful and ugly process and in many cases it's just not worth it or it hurts you or it's a ploy to run up your costs or you risk counter suit which sometimes works against the person in the right. (Counter suit is "best defense is a strong offense" strategy and it sometimes works even when it's wrong.)
I cannot speak for the Rybka team or anyone else. I'm pretty sure that if were the author of Rybka and were confronted with the same exact situation I would not have sued. First of all, you would have to figure out WHO to sue, you would have to estimate how much this is going to cost you in terms of dollars and then you have to determine if this is really going to buy you anything. Will the party being sued be able to provide compensation for the damages done? If the party is completely anonymous, how would this be determined?
You argument is fantasy - the fact that Rybka didn't sue does not prove or disprove anything whatsoever.
I've had my software ripped off without pretense, placed on those web sites where you can download cracked software or placed on public domain sites when the software was never public domain. I didn't make any attempt to litigate, but I could have tried. By your ridiculous logic this is "proof" that I didn't believe I was actually wronged. Do you see why I just cannot respect this kind of ignorance?
I assume you don't know of any chess company that had their code stolen and did not sue.
I understand you would not sue unless a cost analysis would urge you to do it.
I hope you understand how the common people without any programming knowledge and therefore unable to judge for themselves the facts would have to rely on ethics when confronted with situations like this.
I don't know how to ethically agree with decisions based on cost analysis.
Mastercard cost analysis of this thread:
One computer $700
Electricity bill $50
Commercial software $300
Free engines $0
Testing your favorite engines without requiring other people to do it for you, PRICELESS
chesstango wrote:Dear Graham: I know that many engines working around , are not "officially 'recognized... As many people tell that they are clones of Fruit or whatever, i wish to know if anybody of the commercial companies has began a trial in any country to protect its rights....
Pls clear me up , because if u say that an engine is watched as clone and ilegal, why nobody (if this is true) sued them till now. And if it is the case,no sues, why do u split the spaces over this forum....
Thx
Dr Wesler
I don't believe any recent chess company has initiated legal proceedings to protect it's rights.
I don't think this implies anything however. The idea that this proves they don't believe it's a clone is really naive on your part. When a company decides to do such a thing they have to weigh the potential benefit vs the potential gain. Litigation always carries a significant potential downside and very often fails to pay for itself.
I think you must put chess software in the same league as the big corporations who commonly go to court over many things. The big corporations use litigation as a tool and weapon - it's rarely about justice. You are just extremely naive if you think it's as simple as just suing someone to protect your rights, the good guys always win, etc. You have been watching too many television shows perhaps.
Mr. Dailey,
Do you know of any chess company that saw their code stolen and distributed as freeware and did not sue?
If you had a commercial product and god forbid went through the same experience would you sue?
I would only sue after doing a cost analysis. One of the things that has to be weighed is how likely it is that you would win such a suit. Winning a suit is not that strongly correlated with whether it was actually stolen or not. It has more to do with how much you can afford to pay lawyers for the fight. A very common litigation technique is to run the other guy out of money and patience.
If someone just takes existing code and tries to resell, then it's relatively easy to make a case for that but that's rarely what happens. What a dishonest company or supposed new author would do in the case of chess is to change enough things that they can make it seem that they have some kind of valid argument that it's original code.
It's very nebulous because if I change 1 byte, I can say it's different, if I change 2 bytes it's "more different" and if I change more and more I start moving into gray areas' etc. It doesn't take much to create "reasonable doubt" in the minds of enough people to make a difference. A lot of criminals get away with things simply because we cannot prove with certainty what we know. Or valid cases are lost simply because the juries are not sophisticated enough to understand the proof, or they are just gullible. Lawyers do clever things to sway juries (or judges) that go way beyond the truth and actual facts.
This idea that if someone doesn't sue you, then you didn't do anything wrong is just utterly asinine. Any reasonable person thinks twice before suing someone because it's a painful and ugly process and in many cases it's just not worth it or it hurts you or it's a ploy to run up your costs or you risk counter suit which sometimes works against the person in the right. (Counter suit is "best defense is a strong offense" strategy and it sometimes works even when it's wrong.)
I cannot speak for the Rybka team or anyone else. I'm pretty sure that if were the author of Rybka and were confronted with the same exact situation I would not have sued. First of all, you would have to figure out WHO to sue, you would have to estimate how much this is going to cost you in terms of dollars and then you have to determine if this is really going to buy you anything. Will the party being sued be able to provide compensation for the damages done? If the party is completely anonymous, how would this be determined?
You argument is fantasy - the fact that Rybka didn't sue does not prove or disprove anything whatsoever.
I've had my software ripped off without pretense, placed on those web sites where you can download cracked software or placed on public domain sites when the software was never public domain. I didn't make any attempt to litigate, but I could have tried. By your ridiculous logic this is "proof" that I didn't believe I was actually wronged. Do you see why I just cannot respect this kind of ignorance?
I assume you don't know of any chess company that had their code stolen and did not sue.
Yes, myself.
I understand you would not sue unless a cost analysis would urge you to do it.
I hope you understand how the common people without any programming knowledge and therefore unable to judge for themselves the facts would have to rely on ethics when confronted with situations like this.
I don't know how to ethically agree with decisions based on cost analysis.
Based on your comments, I wonder what this thread is really about. Is this an issue where people are feeling guilty about using these clones and want to really know if it's ok or not? Or is it something else? If you read carefully you see a lot of this is philosophical and/or political. It depends of course on who is posting but in one line of reasoning the sentiment is that us good and hard working people are being victimized by the evil giant corporations (rybka) who are holding back good things from the common man.
I personally believe that the rating agencies are being pressured to "legitimize" these clones against their wishes (in the name of freedom, we should force people to do things they don't want to do.)
Why not just leave it alone and make your own decision for yourself and let everyone else make their own decisions for themselves?
It's not my thread and I'm sorry if I took the discussion off topic.
I appreciate your responses though and agree with your opinion about rating groups.
They will never be successful of being viewed as unbiased until someone makes this issue illegal as opposed to simply questionable.
Looks like everyone loses because it takes too much effort to do the right thing.
Don wrote:I personally believe that the rating agencies are being pressured to "legitimize" these clones against their wishes (in the name of freedom, we should force people to do things they don't want to do.)
Here is the Playchess stance. I will say though that I consider there to be nothing wrong with Cyclone.:
Chess engines that are believed to be unauthorized copies of legitimate engines will not be permitted. The following rule will be applied:
"Engine Clones and alleged Clones are an ever increasing problem. Chess engines that are believed to be unauthorized copies of legitimate engines will not be permitted. Sometimes a sysop will ask users not to play with a certain engine if the engine's legitimacy can not be established. If you have doubts about the engine you want to load, ask a SysOp. Remember, it is your responsibility to use a legimate chess engine. Contraventions will be punished, which may include a complete permanent banning of all access accounts."
"Ippolit, Robbolito, Cyclone, Igorrit, IvanHoe, Firebird / Fire, Toby, Tankist, Houdini, Cryptic and others are consider as cloned engines or probable cloned engines -> Please Do Not Use"
Banks, I see a problem:
How you determine if a engine is a true suspect?
I mean, just for example, the author of a commercial engine will call -without proof- that a new strong free engine its a clone only because it means less sales.
If you blindly believe without need of proof (called "faith") in this person, you are limiting yourself.
So far many engines had been called a rybka clone but never a proof has been released. Most of those engines called clones are supposed to be clones of rybka 3, now outdated. So there is not big deal to show some parts of code (not all) of rybka 3 to compare with those suspected clones.
Maybe we will never see rybka code because is a fruit clone? and I bet we can also find ideas from stockfish and other free engines under GNU or other licenses engines inside rybka.
And that also a good explanation why there is no legal actions from rybka team.
Don:
I still do not follow you at least in your rage. I am man enough, I believe, for many things, but perhaps I am not moderator enough to chase every `post here and certainly I am not delicate enough to see havoc everywhere.
I am sorry I disappointed you.
Nimzovik wrote:For God's sake men!! Leave Banks alone! He is a man that follow his conscience. Do NOT fault him for that! disagree if one must. That is ok. So...let Banks have his opinion and let that be ok as well. I for one am very suspicious of those that attack those that follwow thier conscience. NUFF SAID.
+1
Graham can choose to use them or not, I don't care, as long as he isn't attacking people who disagree with him....
Or behaving like the Rybkaforum folks.
And like Don said, we could use a little moderation here.
Peter
Just because we do not announce each act of moderation does not mean we are not here moderating
moderation done in the background is far more effective then when announced like a circus side show
i have been moderating posts about the Fruit-Rybka-Ippo debate for a year now..so has Bob
the issue always invites emotional posts ..always will
Steve
Sorry. I didn't realize it (which I guess means you are very effective).
