Author: Miguel A. Ballicora
Date: 19:36:45 02/15/04
Go up one level in this thread
On February 15, 2004 at 16:58:02, Slater Wold wrote: >On February 15, 2004 at 16:51:28, Dann Corbit wrote: > >>On February 15, 2004 at 16:47:14, Robert Hyatt wrote: >> >>>On February 15, 2004 at 16:07:11, Dann Corbit wrote: >>> >>>>On February 15, 2004 at 15:52:35, Matthias Gemuh wrote: >>>> >>>>>On February 15, 2004 at 15:07:39, Robert Hyatt wrote: >>>>> >>>>> >>>>>> >>>>>> >>>>>>Here we disagree. I see nothing wrong with starting from some known point, so >>>>>>long as you eventually end up with nothing but your own code... Otherwise you >>>>>>will spend a long time writing all the support stuff, and many lose interest >>>>>>before they get far enough along to actually see their creation play any real >>>>>>chess... >>>>>> >>>>>>IE this is where "C" came from. Changes to "B". Etc... >>>> >>>>Let's suppose that somehere in the process, your algorithms looked considerably >>>>similar to the ones that you started with. >>>> >>>>Then you let people use your program. Someone noticed that some data arrays in >>>>your program were the same as in his. >>>> >>>>A big brew-ha-ha starts. >>>> >>>>Apparently the crime committed is that enough changes were not committed yet to >>>>make it unrecognizable. >>>> >>>>I do not think that this is the path that DanChess did. Rather, he took ideas >>>>from crafty and grafted the algorithms into his program. In doing so, he had to >>>>make changes to each idea that he adopted. >>>> >>>>This is somehow seen as a great crime, but the other not? >>>> >>>>Puzzling to me. It is the copy/replace scheme that seems criminal to me. And >>>>the adoption of ideas that seems totally harmless. >>> >>> >>>I'll remind you once again, I copied _lots_ of ideas over the years, from >>>various people like Slate, Thompson, et. al. But I have never copied _any_ >>>source code from anyone... >>> >>>This is about source, not about ideas. They are different. >>> >>>I would have no problem whatsoever with DanChess had he did what he did, but >>>then evolved things to be significantly different _before_ starting to >>>distribute it as an original chess program. >> >>You bring up an interesting point. Not about copyright and not about >>algorithms. But about ownership. Not ownership of ideas or algorithms or >>source code, but ownership of a system. The question is this: >> >>I started with system x and made systematic changes to arrive at system y. >> >>At what point does system x.n on the way to becomeing system y become "mine" as >>opposed to the original owner of system x? >> >>I have no idea how such a determination might be made. > >The Supreme Court came up with this standard long ago. Supreme court of what country? ;-) >The new system has to make the work easier, and be more effecient. Period. Not enough for "computer chess" as sport, IMHO. Here the standards should be different, I think. Miguel >http://www2.law.cornell.edu/cgi-bin/foliocgi.exe/patentcases/query=[Group+383us1:]([level+case+citation:]|[level+case+elements:])/doc/{@1}/hit_headings/words=4/hits_only?
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.