"B"
Admin
 Posts : 1201
Reputation : 4017
Join date : 2010-01-17
Location : undetermined
 |  Subject: Facts NOT Rybka fanboy fantasies (Vas destroys evidence ) Mon Oct 10, 2011 2:07 pm | |
| |
[You must be registered and logged in to see this link.]
| [You must be registered and logged in to see this link.]
Today 12:42 pm
Re: The Rybka Forum engine (drug) cartels react against fact
Postby K I Hyams » Mon Oct 10, 2011 12:29 pm
BB+ wrote:
Uly wrote:Alright, it's hard to not take good advice from you, so I've added bob to my ignore list.
Also turbo, I'd like you to know that most of the real
discussion is currently happening on OpenChess, with people that know
more what they're talking about than bob, I encourage you to go there
and expose your points, I think the discussion would then be more
fruitful (pun intended).
And don't worry, OpenChess also has a Ignore user feature, so you can go there and add bob into it as well.
So I had my weekly glance at Rybka Forum. And ran across this: the
process and output of the program is not eligible for copyright, but the
specific code that accomplishes those processes is.
On what basis was Whelan v. Jaslow decided? One of the elements was
that process contained [too] many "overall structural similarities".
The district court found that the copyright law covered these
non-literal elements of the program, and we agree. This conclusion in
turn requires us to consider whether there was sufficient evidence of
substantial similarity between the structures of the two programs at
issue in this case to uphold the district court’s finding of copyright
infringement. Because we find that there was enough evidence, we affirm.
[...] [The plaintiff's expert witness] also testified that five
particularly important “subroutines” within both programs – order entry,
invoicing, accounts receivable, end of day procedure, and end of month
procedure – performed almost identically in both programs. [...] [The
defendant's expert witness] concluded that “substantive differences in
programming style, in programming structure, in algorithms and data
structures, all indicate that the Dentcom system is not directly derived
from either of the other systems.” [...] In his written report,
however, which was entered into evidence, [he] conceded that the
Dentalab and Dentcom programs had “overall structural similarities.”
The district court ruled for Whelan Associates on all grounds. [...]
We hold that (1) copyright protection of computer programs may
extend beyond the programs’ literal code to their structure, sequence,
and organization, and (2) the district court’s finding of substantial
similarity between the Dentalab and Dentcom programs was not clearly
erroneous. The judgment of the district court will therefore be
affirmed.
[The logic behind this court's finding was later partially
restricted (though overall agreed upon and in some part amplified, I
would say) via later case law with the Abstraction-Filtration-Comparison
Test].
Some of the earlier "Space Invaders"-like games led to questions of
what parts of the audiovisual experience (output) were protected, and
again copyright protection was extended (at least partially) to such
"output".
Audiovisual works such as these are primarily unprotectable
games. Atari, 672 F.2d at 617. As the Seventh Circuit noted, however,
the particular forms in which they are expressed — "shapes, sizes,
colors, sequences, arrangements, and sounds" — add something beyond the
mere game idea. Id. Thus, "The audio component and the concrete details
of the visual presentation constitute the copyrightable expression of
that game `idea'". Id. Nonetheless, Bandai argues that any similarities
between its games and Midway's are nonactionable since they result from
an allegedly inevitable connection between the expressions and the
similarities in the underlying unprotectable ideas.
Bandai's position fails as a matter of law. It assumes, sub
silentio, that the idea of Midway's Galaxian game actually includes the
physical characteristics of the characters involved. If such reasoning
were accepted, a copyright defendant could always avoid liability merely
by describing a plaintiff's work in great detail and then labeling that
description the "idea" of plaintiff's work. The "idea" of any work
could always be defined in such detail that the description of the
expression would add nothing to the "idea", thus allowing a defendant to
engage in all but verbatim copying. Such a ploy cannot be allowed.
To try to state this in terms of a UCI chess program, the "idea" of
returning specific UCI strings given specific UCI input via the
processes of a "chess engine" (e.g. "position fen X" then "go depth 15"
in engine Y) is too closely detailed to be an "idea".
I conclude that the phrasing here (the process and output of the
program is not eligible for copyright) is too general to be more than an
(often incorrect) guide. I could go on and dissect what "specific code"
means (e.g., does [or to what extent] a C rendition of functionally
equivalent disassembled code qualify?), but I won't bother. If this is
the sort of copyright "advice" on which modern software engineers rely,
I'm surprised there are not more lawsuits. The proper standard (or
catchphrase) to use is "substantial similarity", and one should be
familiar with the AFC test vis-a-vis copyright infringement.
And to ask the nagging: on what basis did VR claim Strelka and
IPPOLIT to be clones of Rybka, as I would think it fails the "specific
code" test?
~~~
K I Hyams wrote :......
About a month ago, I got the impression that the standard of proof that a
court would consider sufficient is considerably less than that which
Rajlich’s supporters believe to be the case. My attention was drawn to
the Whelan vs Jaslow case by a CCC post from Marcel Van Kervinck. 5
minutes of scrolling through the documentation led me to the feeling
that those acolytes who are pinning their hopes on the possibility that a
court will vindicate Rajlich are likely to be disappointed.
Further superficial skimming of web pages led me to the tentative
conclusion that the chances of this case ever arriving in court are
remote; the FSF appear more interested in holding a line, rather than
establishing a new one and Rajlich will be advised to avoid going to
court at all costs. On that basis the individual outcome that is most
likely is that Rajlich will agree to open his sources.
Such an agreement will leave open the possibility that those who can be
seen to have suffered damage as a consequence of Rajlich’s behaviour
will then sue him. His more bovine supporters imply that this was a
victimless crime, presumably on the basis that Rajlich’s programs simply
generated income that would not otherwise have existed. However, I am
not aware of any suggestion in the Whelan vs Jaslow case that the
defendant’s program simply generated additional income and I think that a
court would take the view that the vast majority of money from sales
that goes to Rajlich would otherwise have gone to Fabien, SMK et al.
Meanwhile, Rajlich’s apologists continue their counter-productive policy
of rehashing failed arguments. The latest being that in addition and
subsequent to having destroyed the Rybka 3 code, he has now destroyed
the Rybka2 and Rybka 1 code. However, as Cimiotti informs us that he had
R2 and R3 code at the time that the panel was in session an innocent
person would not have destroyed it because it would prove his innocence
in court.
[You must be registered and logged in to see this image.]
| [You must be registered and logged in to see this link.]
| re: Facts NOT Rybka fanboy fantasies (Vas destroys evidence )
[You must be registered and logged in to see this link.]
Today 2:00 pm
+1 woot woot
[You must be registered and logged in to see this image.]
[You must be registered and logged in to see this link.]
source [You must be registered and logged in to see this link.]
| | |
|
