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.