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.