Computer Chess Club Archives


Search

Terms

Messages

Subject: Re: definition of clones: Danchess an Crafty

Author: Dann Corbit

Date: 11:27:19 02/15/04

Go up one level in this thread


On February 15, 2004 at 14:24:04, Bob Durrett wrote:

>On February 15, 2004 at 14:01:26, Dann Corbit wrote:
>
>>On February 15, 2004 at 13:53:33, Bob Durrett wrote:
>>
>>>On February 15, 2004 at 13:24:54, Uri Blass wrote:
>>>
>>>>I understood from the winboard forum that Bob considers DanChess as a crafty
>>>>clone and the question is what is the definition of a clone.
>>>>
>>>>I remember from slater's post in this forum that if most of the code is
>>>>different you cannot win in court by complaining that it is a clone.
>>>>
>>>>I understood from Dann's post that only 30% of the code of DanChess is
>>>>similiar(that does not mean the same as Crafty).
>>>>
>>>>Dann Corbit posted in the winboard forum the SEE function of Danchess that is
>>>>similiar to Crafty.
>>>>I wonder if it is really the main reason that Bob considers Danchess as a clone
>>>>or only one of the reasons.
>>>>
>>>>Uri
>>>
>>>Can you patent or copyright an algorithm????
>>
>>You can patent an algorithm.
>
>That begs the questions:  "Has the alpha/beta algorithm been patented?"  "If so,
>when will the patent run out?"

It has not been patented.  And since there is prior art now, it cannot be
patented.

>Since everybody is using the alpha/beta algorithm, I assume this problem has
>been solved.  But what about all the other algorithms and tricks used in chess
>software?  It sounds like a potential legal nightmare to me.

It costs hundreds of thousands of dollars to find out if you are in patent
compliance.

I agree that it is a legal nightmare.




This page took 0 seconds to execute

Last modified: Thu, 15 Apr 21 08:11:13 -0700

Current Computer Chess Club Forums at Talkchess. This site by Sean Mintz.