Author: Slater Wold
Date: 22:15:19 05/04/02
Go up one level in this thread
On May 04, 2002 at 22:45:06, David Dory wrote: >>On May 03, 2002 at 17:13:59, Slater Wold wrote: > >>The company I work for gives all its employees free legal representation. While >>not all legal procedings are covered, all questions/research over the phone are. >> I called a "company" lawyer a few days ago and presented him with Jeroen's >>problem. This is what he told me: >> >>1.) If Jeroen has *ever* gotten paid 1 penny from Rebel, the books are not >his. > >I'd consult with a *copyright* lawyer, not this one! The lawyer was E. Randall Smith. He specializes in Intellectual Property, such as Trademarks, Copyrights, Patents, etc. >The opening book is probably licensed - not sold, and the copyright holder would >be a matter of fact that the court would clarify before any rulings. It would >not automatically become Ed's copyright because he paid Jeroen a fee. It is >subject to the terms & conditions of the agreement between Ed and Jeroen, and >applicable law in their country. Jeroen's status as an employee of Ed's or an >independent contractor would be decided in the same manner. Most of my statements were "assumptions" because of course I did not ask these personal questions. I don't think Ed or Noomen would tell me. >Rebel probably also is licensed - not sold. What you thought was a "purchase" >actually was a "license to use" fee. That use is subject to the provisions of >the stated license. And "licenesed" vs "bought" does not apply here. Simply because copyright doesn't cover the output of a chess engine. *PERIOD*. >This would be consistent with most software. Fritz7 is licensed, for instance. >You NEVER "bought" it. You bought the right to USE it within the restrictions of >the license agreement. And as long as you're using it within your limits, the output is "fair use" knowledge. >It is irrelevant whether the opening book is considered "one" with Rebel, Tiger, >or both, or neither. Makes no difference, as long as the opening book is covered >by a license agreement with the user's (either derivatively through the engine's >license, or directly). Neither does it matter how many engines sign up to obtain >the license for the book's use. It is when you go making claims about calling someone a cheater. That's why I was showing their maybe a link. >It IS very true that the moves produced could not be covered under any >copyright. Reverse engineering is generally prohibited by software licensing >agreements, however, the courts in the U.S. have held that in some _special_ >cases, it IS legal. > >Rookie lawyers, schiisch! He has been in practice for a while. Probably longer than you've been practicing law. >David
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.