Why No Chessbase News On Mark Watkins Article??

[Thomas Mayer]

A list of representatives will not be sufficient to form a legal entity. I'm not sure what the minimum requirements are (which are probably different depending on the countries, each). But I would guess it should be something like a regular, registered club, at least. Something the "authorities" have recognized, in some way, similar to a company or other type of organization.

Just gathering and saying, "we are the ICGA" is not sufficient IMO.

I believe that the standards in germany and austria are almost similar high, it's not easy to found something that is registered as legal entity. Somehow I think this is much easier in the UK or US, maybe Bob can enlighten us, as far as I know he remembers the founding of the ICCA.

Interesting is, that PayPal charges money for fee's and donations to the ICGA where other organizations (e.g. Doctors without borders) are not charged.

Greets, Thomas

[dj]

Amen to that. Could not the six moderators get together and forbid further discussion (if that word is indeed merited, which I doubt) on any TalkChess forum? The Grand Inquisitor (the main culprit in the torrent of verbiage) is, of course, a mod and he would object, but perhaps a majority vote might defeat him.

At least ChessBase restricted itself to a single series of brief articles and (presumably) will now let the topic die the death it so richly deserves.

Shouldn't a judge (in this case a moderator) RECUSE himself if he is part of the case?

From the "Free Dictionary":

Noun 1. recusal - (law) the disqualification of a judge or jury by reason of prejudice or conflict of interest; a judge can be recused by objections of either party or judges can disqualify themselves

Hyatt would argue that he is not part of the case as such.... and he would produce several hundred posts in defence of his opinion.

[Thomas Mayer]

On what possible grounds could a lawyer seek to force ChessBase to publish the opinions of Mark Watkins - or indeed any other person on the planet?

It is a german company which has to obey german law. According to that there is a measurment in the "law for media" which roughly translates into something called "counterstatement" (Gegendarstellung). This counterstatement can be asked by any person or organisation which feels wrongly attacked. Either they publish it directly or a court would decide if they have to publish it or if the original article was covered by the "free press" thing. If it would happen the law says that the artical is allowed to have the same length at the same position as the original article ...
Of course it is more complicated, eg does the english part has to follow the german law? That depends where the editors are sitting and how independent they are from the company...

If a german court will follow this is something I dont know (I would say so, especially because at least one person with his individual right was attacked (Bob)), but there IS a legal ground to force media to do something like this in germany. (You can see that quite often in the german tabloids)

Bye
Ingo

PS: this doesnt mean that the media was wrong. Usually the editors write a sentence like "The editors stick to their opinion" under the counterstatement ...

I doubt whether a court would suppose the Riis article attacked anybody. It made some factually correct comments about the amazing number of posts by Hyatt, but in general it was a scolarly defence against attacks on Rybka and Rajlich. Perhaps Hyatt will give us a laugh and follow your advice. Which words do you suppose he would tell the court that he objects to?

This is silly. Germany may have some daft laws but not as daft as you portray it.

Hi Derek,

the english term for it is "right of reply" - after reading the english wikipedia article (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Right_of_reply) I am not sure whether this is guaranteed in the uk or in the usa - in germany it is definitely guaranteed, but I believe that ChessBase USA is responsible for the chessbase.com newsticker, so I doubt that german right plays any role there.

Greets, Thomas

P.S.: I believe it is a good law.

[IWB]

On what possible grounds could a lawyer seek to force ChessBase to publish the opinions of Mark Watkins - or indeed any other person on the planet?

It is a german company which has to obey german law. According to that there is a measurment in the "law for media" which roughly translates into something called "counterstatement" (Gegendarstellung). This counterstatement can be asked by any person or organisation which feels wrongly attacked. Either they publish it directly or a court would decide if they have to publish it or if the original article was covered by the "free press" thing. If it would happen the law says that the artical is allowed to have the same length at the same position as the original article ...
Of course it is more complicated, eg does the english part has to follow the german law? That depends where the editors are sitting and how independent they are from the company...

If a german court will follow this is something I dont know (I would say so, especially because at least one person with his individual right was attacked (Bob)), but there IS a legal ground to force media to do something like this in germany. (You can see that quite often in the german tabloids)

Bye
Ingo

PS: this doesnt mean that the media was wrong. Usually the editors write a sentence like "The editors stick to their opinion" under the counterstatement ...

I doubt whether a court would suppose the Riis article attacked anybody. It made some factually correct comments about the amazing number of posts by Hyatt, but in general it was a scolarly defence against attacks on Rybka and Rajlich. Perhaps Hyatt will give us a laugh and follow your advice. Which words do you suppose he would tell the court that he objects to?

This is silly. Germany may have some daft laws but not as daft as you portray it.

Hi Derek,

the english term for it is "right of reply" - after reading the english wikipedia article (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Right_of_reply) I am not sure whether this is guaranteed in the uk or in the usa - in germany it is definitely guaranteed, but I believe that ChessBase USA is responsible for the chessbase.com newsticker, so I doubt that german right plays any role there.

Greets, Thomas

P.S.: I believe it is a good law.

Derek ask if there is a legal ground and I replied there might be some. Nothing more nothing less. Derek critisized the law but is is established, accepted and approves for years and I consider it a very good and reasonable law!
As I said, the case is difficult and I don't know what a judge woud say (and again, they would not judge the case, just if someone has the right to reply at the same place). What you said about Chessbase USA might be right, but Chessbase Germany is linking to the page and you know we have some "strange" decisions about 'linking to other pages and make that your own opinion' in germany ... (and then I have no idea where CB USA might be registered as well ...)

Bye
Ingo

[Harvey Williamson]

On what possible grounds could a lawyer seek to force ChessBase to publish the opinions of Mark Watkins - or indeed any other person on the planet?

It is a german company which has to obey german law. According to that there is a measurment in the "law for media" which roughly translates into something called "counterstatement" (Gegendarstellung). This counterstatement can be asked by any person or organisation which feels wrongly attacked. Either they publish it directly or a court would decide if they have to publish it or if the original article was covered by the "free press" thing. If it would happen the law says that the artical is allowed to have the same length at the same position as the original article ...
Of course it is more complicated, eg does the english part has to follow the german law? That depends where the editors are sitting and how independent they are from the company...

If a german court will follow this is something I dont know (I would say so, especially because at least one person with his individual right was attacked (Bob)), but there IS a legal ground to force media to do something like this in germany. (You can see that quite often in the german tabloids)

Bye
Ingo

PS: this doesnt mean that the media was wrong. Usually the editors write a sentence like "The editors stick to their opinion" under the counterstatement ...

I doubt whether a court would suppose the Riis article attacked anybody. It made some factually correct comments about the amazing number of posts by Hyatt, but in general it was a scolarly defence against attacks on Rybka and Rajlich. Perhaps Hyatt will give us a laugh and follow your advice. Which words do you suppose he would tell the court that he objects to?

This is silly. Germany may have some daft laws but not as daft as you portray it.

Hi Derek,

the english term for it is "right of reply" - after reading the english wikipedia article (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Right_of_reply) I am not sure whether this is guaranteed in the uk or in the usa - in germany it is definitely guaranteed, but I believe that ChessBase USA is responsible for the chessbase.com newsticker, so I doubt that german right plays any role there.

Greets, Thomas

P.S.: I believe it is a good law.

Derek ask if there is a legal ground and I replied there might be some. Nothing more nothing less. Derek critisized the law but is is established, accepted and approves for years and I consider it a very good and reasonable law!
As I said, the case is difficult and I don't know what a judge woud say (and again, they would not judge the case, just if someone has the right to reply at the same place). What you said about Chessbase USA might be right, but Chessbase Germany is linking to the page and you know we have some "strange" decisions about 'linking to other pages and make that your own opinion' in germany ... (and then I have no idea where CB USA might be registered as well ...)

Bye
Ingo

The English news site is edited by Frederic Friedel who lives in Hamburg.

[bob]

http://harveywilliamson.com/ICGA/Riis3.pdf

Could it be the whole CB article was just cover, so they can sell Rybka 5?

Totally biased company with no business ethics!

Cordially,

Sean

Stay real, Sean... of course I would welcome it when chessbase would publish the ICGA & Mark Watkins response, but how likely is that as long no lawyer force them to do so (which is very unlikely)...

Unlikely?? Surely you mean impossible? On what possible grounds could a lawyer seek to force ChessBase to publish the opinions of Mark Watkins - or indeed any other person on the planet?

Thomas Mayer wrote:

All this nonsense has anyway taken enough space everywhere.

Greets, Thomas

Amen to that. Could not the six moderators get together and forbid further discussion (if that word is indeed merited, which I doubt) on any TalkChess forum? The Grand Inquisitor (the main culprit in the torrent of verbiage) is, of course, a mod and he would object, but perhaps a majority vote might defeat him.

At least ChessBase restricted itself to a single series of brief articles and (presumably) will now let the topic die the death it so richly deserves.

And EXACTLY why would "the computer chess club" want to stop discussion of one of the major topics of the past year? CTF could be closed with no real loss. But this is about computer chess...

[Rebel]

Does anyone have information if the ICGA is a legal entitiy (corporate body), anywhere, anyhow?

Only natural persons or legal entities can go to court.

Or more simple: http://rybkaforum.net/cgi-bin/rybkaforu ... #pid391001

[mclane]

IMO there is no need for going to court.

it will be enough to inform media in germany (TV, news-media: Spiegel, Stern, Akte2012, Monitor, TAZ, Chip, Computer-Bild...)
about the incident and the TV-stations or news-media will try to get an official answer by chessbase WHY they sell products from somebody who has been taken away championship titles because he copy-pasted other chess programs.

the news media will ask chessbase all the ugly questions
and i am sure they will not like it.

so IMO it is or will be very risky for a serious company to
sell a product that has a dubious origin.

i am a little irritated that a person of the competent knowledge like frederic friedel, who is in the business for ages, is doing such a stupid mistake.

is chessbase on a suicide mission and frederic directing this mission ?

[Harvey Williamson]

IMO there is no need for going to court.

it will be enough to inform media in germany (TV, news-media)
about the incident and the TV-stations or news-media will try to get an official answer by chessbase WHY they sell products from somebody who has been taken away championship titles because he copy-pasted other chess programs.

the news media will ask chessbase all the ugly questions
and i am sure they will not like it.

so IMO it is or will be very risky for a serious company to
sell a product that has a dubious origin.

i am a little irritated that a person of the competent knowledge like frederic friedel, who is in the business for ages, is doing such a stupid mistake.


is chessbase on a suicide mission and frederic directing this mission ?

Perhaps you should contact the german media

[mclane]

Perhaps you should contact the german media

as far as i know chessbase is not trying to sell rybka5 yet.

lets wait until they try it, then one can contact the media.

i am sure the programmers who wrote open letters to the world, and the ICGA will have no problems to inform the news media about the german company from hamburg trying to sell products from a programmer who has been caught copying/paste other programs.

we had quite a few nice months here in germany with politicians who had copy/pasted their doctor titles.
i am sure a nice article about the new copy/paste mentality in
science, politics and commercial business will interest many people.


and chessbase HAS the alternative to sell hiarcs / junior or other products, isn't it ?

you harvey could also make a nice article for the british media.

i am sure you can make it, if you try.