Computer Chess Club Archives


Search

Terms

Messages

Subject: Re: definition of clones: Danchess an Crafty

Author: Dann Corbit

Date: 12:56:51 02/15/04

Go up one level in this thread


On February 15, 2004 at 15:50:51, Keith Evans wrote:

>On February 15, 2004 at 15:15:42, Dann Corbit wrote:
>
>>On February 15, 2004 at 15:10:30, Slater Wold 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????
>>>
>>>Patents cost, on average, about $10k.
>>>
>>>No one is ever going to patent an algorithm for chess, unless it actually solves
>>>the game.
>>
>>Some chess algorithms are probably worth millions of dollars, if they had been
>>patented.
>>
>>Searching and sorting are where 40% of mainframe cycles go.  And chess is
>>searching.
>>
>>Fortunately, back in the days when these things were invented, people would
>>publish them for the sheer joy of discovery.
>>
>>The Communications of the ACM put the software industry ahead by such leaps and
>>bounds that I think it is one of the major reasons why software is now a multi
>>billion dollar industry.
>>
>>In my opinion, software patents are evil.  Here is why:
>>You cannot patent a process or mathematics.  Algorithms are an embodiment of
>>processes and mathematics.  It seems simple logic to me that no software should
>>receive a patent.
>>
>>But the law as it stands says that you can patent.  And so I will obey these
>>laws, even if I don't like them.
>
>What do you mean by "You cannot patent a process ... " I'm not sure if you're
>talking about the way things are, or the way you think they should be.
>
>From USPTO - "Utility patents may be granted to anyone who invents or discovers
>any new and            useful process, machine, article of manufacture, or
>compositions of matters, or any new useful improvement thereof."
>
>My grandfather had many process related patents related to petroleum processing.
>This was long before people were talking about patenting software.
>
>-K

Yes.  A terrible mistake on my part (possibly Freudian).  It is an idea rather
than a process that cannot receive a patent.

This is eloquent:
http://lpf.ai.mit.edu/Patents/knuth-to-pto.txt

This stuff has a lot that I agree with:
http://www.abul.org/brevets/articles/tsuba_refs.php3?langnew=en



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.