Author: Keith Evans
Date: 15:53:06 01/07/04
Go up one level in this thread
On January 07, 2004 at 12:11:29, Ed Trice wrote: >On January 07, 2004 at 11:52:26, Michel Langeveld wrote: >> >>The patent issue was not clear at all clear to me and probably to others. And >>why play with fire as developer if there is no need to do so, for a technical >>person who like a challenge. >> >>I know also that copyrightholders and probably also patentholder have to protect >>it else they loose this right. You do this well but please take care with >>Reinhard Scharnagl. He has probably nothing negative in his mind. >>I think he is perfectly capcable in making a Gothic Chess program too. > >I thought it was rather clear; $1 = no worries. > >Would it not be more difficult to create a convoluted program, as he suggested, >than to send me $1? > >I think I was being reasonable, and I think he was offering what he perceived as >a "legal loophole", which everyone who jumped through would get burned. > >I was preventing a catastrophe. He does bring up an interesting question - If somebody programs an engine to play Capablanca's chess are they infringing upon your patent? Are you only patenting the starting position and your piece design? If so then doesn't that mean that any _engine_ capable of playing Capablanca's chess could play gothic chess if it implemented a generic setboard command? (Which it would most likely do for other reasons.) It would seem to me that the GUI for said engine would be what would potentially violate the patent. I guess that since you did not mention any match with Bill Angel's modified GNU chess, that there must be other differences. -K
This page took 0.01 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.