ethical dilemma

[Terry McCracken]

All the material table of 2*3*3*3*3*3*3*9*9 is unique to rybka

etc.

So you can show me identical parts of code or not?

Vas has already done this, it's a clone an obvious clone.

[Andrej Sidorov]

All the material table of 2*3*3*3*3*3*3*9*9 is unique to rybka

etc.

So you can show me identical parts of code or not?

Vas has already done this, it's a clone an obvious clone.

Vas didn't show nothing. Not a single line of "stolen" code.

[Terry McCracken]

All the material table of 2*3*3*3*3*3*3*9*9 is unique to rybka

etc.

So you can show me identical parts of code or not?

Vas has already done this, it's a clone an obvious clone.

Vas didn't show nothing. Not a single line of "stolen" code.

You want him to post the code in public? Is Vas a liar?

[Andrej Sidorov]

You want him to post the code in public? Is Vas a liar?

Code of Strelka IS public. What line of it is copied from Rybka? Show and prove. Vasik didn't. Nobody did.
No copied code -> no copyright violation-> no issue.

[Terry McCracken]

You want him to post the code in public? Is Vas a liar?

Code of Strelka IS public. What line of it is copied from Rybka? Show and prove. Vasik didn't. Nobody did.
No copied code -> no copyright violation-> no issue.

Go read what Vas said, it's in the Hiarcs Forum, General Forum Main Lobby, reposted by Harvey Williamson.

[Andrej Sidorov]

I read what Vas said. Not a single line of Strelka code in his post. "tricks", "method", "representation" and other algorithm stuff are not subject of copyright. Only code.
No evidences in Vas post anyway. Only declarations.

[bob]

I'm not a lawyer either, but I am pretty certain that if it were to be judged by US intellectual property laws, that unrestricted use of a program would be interpreted as meaning running the program, and that if Vas had wanted to share the internal organs of Rybka, he would simply have published the source code.

I think the only element that would be debated, and subject to proof, would be whether Strelka did indeed use parts of Rybka. However, if this doubt were not in debate, I don't think there would be any question on guilt as per law.

Albert

Vas has stated categorically that Strelka is a Rybka Clone. Go to the Hiarcs Forum and read it for yourself. It's in the General Forum Main Lobby posted by Harvey.

It explains it all.

Terry

What does that have to do with a court of law?

Albert

Well we'll find out if the guy tries to do the same with the latest version of Rybka, (he's threatened to do so), but if he has any brains he won't go that far as he'll be sued!

You can bet on that!

Terry

Has Vas patented his new ideas? If not, there will never be a law suit because there is no infringement. Reverse-engineering infringement suits depend on the pre-existing patent to form the basis for the infringement. There is clearly no copyright issue if actual original code is not copied. In fact, US patent/copyright laws are very clear in what can be copyrighted and what has to be patented...

Nothing will come of this unless a patent is filed. then the idea is public and there are then many ways to produce the same result with a different approach, which would be beneficial to many.

I can't be certain, I hope he has for his own sake. If he hasn't he's pretty much screwed

Terry

I doubt anyone other than UbiSoft makes enough money to pay the fees...

[Rolf]

I doubt anyone other than UbiSoft makes enough money to pay the fees...

Why seeking money for fees. For a first step it would help if we banned here all Russians in the forum and for all let's deactivate all chessplayers from Russia and other republics. So that they can no longer make some money in our national team championships. Also for computerchess events. Russians forbidden in a boycott. This will quickly stop O, believe me.

It cannot be that they use our freedom to then abuse our best talents. Without the western income these players will starve in Russia. Do we have to sac whole generations of promissing players to grant them a freedom that they cannot estimate? Wijk aan Zee should begin the new strategy. Also Kasparov should be banned out of Western Countries. Note that he pays them this Kasparov.com stage. <cough cough cough>

[Graham Banks]

I doubt anyone other than UbiSoft makes enough money to pay the fees...

Why seeking money for fees. For a first step it would help if we banned here all Russians in the forum and for all let's deactivate all chessplayers from Russia and other republics. So that they can no longer make some money in our national team championships. Also for computerchess events. Russians forbidden in a boycott. This will quickly stop O, believe me.

It cannot be that they use our freedom to then abuse our best talents. Without the western income these players will starve in Russia. Do we have to sac whole generations of promissing players to grant them a freedom that they cannot estimate? Wijk aan Zee should begin the new strategy. Also Kasparov should be banned out of Western Countries. Note that he pays them this Kasparov.com stage. <cough cough cough>

You should know better than to suggest something like that Rolf.
You can't punish all Russians for the perceived sins of one or of a small group.

Regards, Graham.

[Dann Corbit]

I'm not a lawyer either, but I am pretty certain that if it were to be judged by US intellectual property laws, that unrestricted use of a program would be interpreted as meaning running the program, and that if Vas had wanted to share the internal organs of Rybka, he would simply have published the source code.

I think the only element that would be debated, and subject to proof, would be whether Strelka did indeed use parts of Rybka. However, if this doubt were not in debate, I don't think there would be any question on guilt as per law.

Albert

Vas has stated categorically that Strelka is a Rybka Clone. Go to the Hiarcs Forum and read it for yourself. It's in the General Forum Main Lobby posted by Harvey.

It explains it all.

Terry

What does that have to do with a court of law?

Albert

Well we'll find out if the guy tries to do the same with the latest version of Rybka, (he's threatened to do so), but if he has any brains he won't go that far as he'll be sued!

You can bet on that!

Terry

Has Vas patented his new ideas? If not, there will never be a law suit because there is no infringement. Reverse-engineering infringement suits depend on the pre-existing patent to form the basis for the infringement. There is clearly no copyright issue if actual original code is not copied. In fact, US patent/copyright laws are very clear in what can be copyrighted and what has to be patented...

Nothing will come of this unless a patent is filed. then the idea is public and there are then many ways to produce the same result with a different approach, which would be beneficial to many.

I can't be certain, I hope he has for his own sake. If he hasn't he's pretty much screwed

Terry

I doubt anyone other than UbiSoft makes enough money to pay the fees...

The fees are the tip of the iceberg. Supposing that you have spent a zillion dollars to get your patent, and you think someone is infringing.

If they can demonstrate pre-existing artwork (the same idea found in a book or someone else's code or...) dated prior to the patent, the patent is now worthless.

Since we have this:
http://mywebpages.comcast.net/danheisma ... alance.htm

I think the patent would melt like butter anyway.

I don't think that there is anything else that is novel in Strelka (though there may well be in Rybka, since it is *much* stronger than Strelka).

So, you spend all the money on the patent, and the money was now tossed down the drain. Furthermore, the opponent may now sue for court costs.

Patents are really just great big hammers owned by the Mega-Huge corporations, used to beat the little guys over the head. They are the only ones with enough resources both to file and obtain the patents and also to pursue not only the original case but appeal after appeal until the smaller opponent has been crushed into oblivion. (Consider the case of STACK, a fairly large company which had a patent on compression technology, but was not large enough to withstand a protracted legal tangle with Microsoft). In the case of STAK, they were clearly in the right and even won their case. In the meantime, they went bankrupt and so all was for naught. A smaller company has no shot whatsoever at getting valid use from a patent.