Author: Ed Trice
Date: 19:36:52 01/07/04
Go up one level in this thread
Hello Sune, > >Ed, I have a few questions. > >1) > >What would happen if someone decided to make an engine that could play certain >chess variants, one of which would be configurable to play Gothic? > >For instance if one made a Capablanca chess engine which via a setboard command >could turn into a Gothic chess game? > >Keith and Uri already asked this question, but at the time of writing this you >haven't answered them. > Yes, that is an interesting question, isn't it :) I know some Harley Davidson owners who buy a "fully compliant" motorcycle in the showroom, then roll into the first specialty shop and have a Screaming Eagle carbeurator put on it, boosting power by 20 HP and adding about 120 parts per million of toxic exhaust to the output, thereby making it into something that would fail an emissions test. Will 20 ppm kill anyone in the grand scheme of things? Not really. Is it illegal? Yes. But to answer your question, yes, if you write a Capablanca chess program, and someone changes the starting position of your piece setup so that it is now a Gothic Chess program, how can an author be responsible for that? I think if that author knows that Gothic Chess is patented, a simple test could be made before exiting the setup mode to make sure it is not the Gothic Chess starting position and disallow it. Of course this is silly though, isn't it? The person could then just setup the position after 1. Nh3 or 1. d4 or any number of moves and let black play. So how am I to respond exactly? Require programmers of 80 square variants to not have an edit board feature? Nope, I can't do it. Monitor the sudden upspringing of Capablanca Chess programs? Not much I can do about it. Allow their programs to play in the annual computer championships for Gothic Chess? That I can control. So that is about all I will do I suppose. Will end users grow weary of entering the setup mode every time they want to play Gothic Chess? It is up to them. For $1, this can go away. >2) > >First off I want to say I have nothing against people trying to make money, I'm >just a little curious of how you have pictured the future of this game should >unfold, hence the following daring question (don't take it the wrong way, really >I'm just curious and I would need to have these issues clearly resolved before >commencing on _anything_): > >Currently you hold all the rights to the game, and >right now you are only asking for $1 for 1 years license. > >However if someone decided to make a really competitive engine that would take a >few years. How could that someone be sure you wouldn't suddenly jam the price up >a few hundred times and ask an obscene amount of money? Because that person would be my new best friend, and my name is Ed Trice, not Bill Gates :) Understand the spirit of the licensing agreement. It makes sense that I hold in check companies that wish to "jump on the bandwagon" and make a Gothic Chess engine for profit at my expense. Did they have to research the variant, play test it, sink money into finding out how many people like playing it? No. Could they profit by all of my expense? Yes. These are the people that will pay more for licenses. If a successful programmer makes an incredible piece of software that kicks everyone's butt, I would be very very happy for that person! Such a person would most likely be given a free license for one year for all of their hard work! >It seems to me you have an aweful power to close down entire projects just by >snapping your fingers. Either people pay up or they can throw years of work in >the trash. That is why licensing agreements should be sought out. If a company wants to make a commercial version, for example, we could have a royalty based arrangement. In year 1, a very low percentage of the profits would be asked for. In year 2, if more profitable, the percentage would increase. This would all be in the contract beforehand. There would also be a ceiling in place. But, if someone makes $10,000,000 with a great program, I would like a little piece of this (wouldn't you?) >Imagine if someone is successful in writing a Gothic engine that out-sells and >out-performs your Gothic engine, how will this affect the license agreement with >that author? See the above. >What legal rights would protect the other author? >Can he force a renewal of the license for the same price, or what? > A multi-year license is possible beforehand, so they have the option to request rates beforehand. >3) > >Regarding marketing strategy wouldn't it be better if possible (I'm no laywer), >to let people use Gothic for free and only demand a percentage if someone starts >making money off it? This is what I was thinking about in the examples above. >I'm thinking of something similar to the legal principle protecting the Nalimov >endgame tables where the amateurs may ask for a free license. > >It strikes me, that it would be in your best interest to make the game as wide >spread as possible, and that you would need some happy amateurs to get started. > Well, we have sold quite a few sets, like I have mentioned, so it is "out there." In fact, I may release Gothic Vortex for shareware as early as this Friday.
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.