Stockfish: Our lawsuit against ChessBase

[syzygy]

* a factory near to where I live produces a useful machine in a pretty container, and it has no patents

If the factory developed that machine, it almost certainly has applied for a patent on it. Nearly everything around you is (or has been) patented.

If there are no patents or they have expired, then you are free to copy. (Just be careful with the copyrighted manual. You'll have to produce your own expression of the instructions.)

The Netherlands has a judge-designed protection against "slavish imitation", which is basically a form of consumer protection.
https://www.epc.nl/en/blog/slavish-imit ... sign-right
You are allowed to copy an unpatented technical solution, but you may have to make a few unimportant changes to avoid giving to consumers the impression that your product or machine is the original product or machine.

In common law this seems to be the tort of "passing off":
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Passing_off

[smatovic]

Hehe, patents, mask work, copyright, trademark, anything missing? Nice round thx for all the input.

--
Srdja

[towforce]

[...]
Here's a simple, unmistakable expression of what I'm saying: "you can't just copy other people's products and sell them as your own".
[...]

Not sure what you are up to (as metaphor for neural networks), but did you ever hear from the "IBM PC compatible computers"?

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/IBM_PC_compatible

IBM did not patent the microarchitecture (unlike its PS/2 Micro-Channel from 1987), Intel and AMD did deliver CPUs, the BIOS was clean-room-reverse-engineered, MS-DOS was indepented -> IBM compatible PC.

IMO this reinforces what I've been saying: companies that made "PC Compatible" computers didn't make exact copies of the machinery of IBM PCs - they had to make new, different machines that were different from (but had the same functionality as) IBM PCs. They had to do this in "clean rooms" without copying the original machines. They weren't able to just make exact copies of the original machines. Before PCs, the same rules applied to "plug compatible" mainframes.

I don't remember anyone ever making the argument that, while the box that houses the computer contains artistic expression, the computer itself doesn't, therefore other computer manufacturers could simply make an exact copy of IBM PC computers and just put them in a different box.

The analogy to NNs would be:

* company A creates an NN (or NN weight file) that can recognise cats

* company B decides that they would also like to be in the "cat recognition software" business

* company B would have to create their own NN - they wouldn't be able to just take company A's NN and resell it as their own

[towforce]

* a factory near to where I live produces a useful machine in a pretty container, and it has no patents

If the factory developed that machine, it almost certainly has applied for a patent on it. Nearly everything around you is (or has been) patented.

If there are no patents or they have expired, then you are free to copy. (Just be careful with the copyrighted manual. You'll have to produce your own expression of the instructions.)

The Netherlands has a judge-designed protection against "slavish imitation", which is basically a form of consumer protection.
https://www.epc.nl/en/blog/slavish-imit ... sign-right
You are allowed to copy an unpatented technical solution, but you may have to make a few unimportant changes to avoid giving to consumers the impression that your product or machine is the original product or machine.

In common law this seems to be the tort of "passing off":
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Passing_off

Thanks - this is valuable!

I would go further, though: you do see "passing off" frequently (e.g. fake Rolex watches). If the company making the "knock offs" gets caught, they will be prosecuted for having broken a law.

However, not only can you not pretend your product is the original one, neither can you slavishly copy the original and sell it under a different name. That is why "PC Compatible" computers had to be developed in "clean rooms", and while they could run PC programs, they were different, newly-designed computers, not slavish copies of IBM PCs.

Per my previous post, I simply don't think I could take another company's NN (assuming they didn't offer it as open source) and resell it as my own under my own name.

[Ras]

I would go further, though: you do see "passing off" frequently (e.g. fake Rolex watches). If the company making the "knock offs" gets caught, they will be prosecuted for having broken a law.

Yes, but that's the trademark law because Rolex is a registered trademark. That has nothing to do with the copyright that this discussion is about.

[towforce]

OK - I haven't simplified my point enough yet, so I'll have another go:

Per previous posts, we have seen that new "clean room" versions of machines that are not exact copies of existing machines, but which have the same functionality as the original, have been manufactured.

Can anyone give me an example of a case where a second company has made an actual exact copy of another company's machine (excluding artwork, packaging, trademarks and open source) without permission?

If a second company could legally copy another company's NN (or NN weights file), then I would expect there to be precedence for this elsewhere in the machine world.

[Ras]

If a second company could legally copy another company's NN (or NN weights file), then I would expect there to be precedence for this elsewhere in the machine world.

That assumption is already flawed because machine manufacturing is surrounded by more laws than just the copyright, e.g. the patent law. Preventing competitors from doing that is the main usage of the patent law in the first place.

[smatovic]

[...]
Here's a simple, unmistakable expression of what I'm saying: "you can't just copy other people's products and sell them as your own".
[...]

Not sure what you are up to (as metaphor for neural networks), but did you ever hear from the "IBM PC compatible computers"?

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/IBM_PC_compatible

IBM did not patent the microarchitecture (unlike its PS/2 Micro-Channel from 1987), Intel and AMD did deliver CPUs, the BIOS was clean-room-reverse-engineered, MS-DOS was indepented -> IBM compatible PC.

IMO this reinforces what I've been saying: companies that made "PC Compatible" computers didn't make exact copies of the machinery of IBM PCs - they had to make new, different machines that were different from (but had the same functionality as) IBM PCs. They had to do this in "clean rooms" without copying the original machines. They weren't able to just make exact copies of the original machines. Before PCs, the same rules applied to "plug compatible" mainframes.

I don't remember anyone ever making the argument that, while the box that houses the computer contains artistic expression, the computer itself doesn't, therefore other computer manufacturers could simply make an exact copy of IBM PC computers and just put them in a different box.

As mentioned and linked, the IBM PC ISA bus was not patented -> free to make your own clone, the IBM PC BIOS was protected by copyright -> clean room design reverse engineering.

The analogy to NNs would be:

* company A creates an NN (or NN weight file) that can recognise cats

* company B decides that they would also like to be in the "cat recognition software" business

* company B would have to create their own NN - they wouldn't be able to just take company A's NN and resell it as their own

Hence the question is how you protect the neural network with given law, patent and copyright seem (according to the lengthy explanations by syzygy) currently not suited, makes sense to me, back then there was no use case of big data with artificial neural networks, so IMHO either it depends on how different juristidications interpret what a neural network represents and how copyright can be applied, or, governments come up with new laws, like the "mask work" for ICs mentioned by syzygy, to offer some kind of protection, time will tell, interesting times - IMHO, YMMW.

--
Srdja

[smatovic]

If a second company could legally copy another company's NN (or NN weights file), then I would expect there to be precedence for this elsewhere in the machine world.

That assumption is already flawed because machine manufacturing is surrounded by more laws than just the copyright, e.g. the patent law. Preventing competitors from doing that is the main usage of the patent law in the first place.

Fun fact, Konrad Zuse did not get a patent on his Z3 (+-1941) in Germany....

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Z3_(computer)
https://www.dpma.de/dpma/veroeffentlich ... index.html
https://www-dpma-de.translate.goog/dpma ... r_pto=wapp
https://www.dpma.de/docs/dpma/veroeffen ... 421950.pdf

--
Srdja

[syzygy]

Hehe, patents, mask work, copyright, trademark, anything missing?

Trade secrets
Plant breeders' rights
Supplementary protection certificates

edit: I forgot to add:
Industrial design rights
Database rights (in the EU; don't help for NNs)