Author: David Dory
Date: 03:19:28 05/05/02
Go up one level in this thread
On May 05, 2002 at 01:15:19, Slater Wold wrote: >On May 04, 2002 at 22:45:06, David Dory wrote: > >>>On May 03, 2002 at 17:13:59, Slater Wold wrote: >> >>> 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. They shouldn't tell us, of course. I thought the attorney should have made the assumption that the Rebel & Tiger programs are licensed _not "sold"_, and discussed more of the fair use principle regarding the opening book. Perhaps this was just a mis-communication between you, the attorney, and the posting to CCC, and my reading of your post. >>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*. I agree, now and then (#1) - the moves can NOT be protected, and ALL licensees have a fair use granted by the license, of course. We agree 100% on that. My understanding of Jeroen's post was his outrage over having his book possibly being taken, as a whole, by means of hacking or reverse engineering the code, without his permission. This would include all or substantial portions of his book, not a few moves. This would not be a fair use of the license, surely. The number of licensee's authorized to incorporate Jeroen's book with their chess program does not impact the effect or liability toward slander by calling someone a cheater, AFAIK. If he should choose to license 1,000 programs to use his book, he could still defend his copyright if any other program stole it, if the fact (of the theft) could be substantiated. Naturally, it also does not allow him to slander anyone with impunity, either. Your legal advice was good, I believe, especially since we just don't know so many of the facts. I believe your attorney should have made certain assumptions however, more in line with legal practice for software licensing. In an actual case, rather than phoned - in advice, I'm sure that all these area's, and more, would be covered. >He has been in practice for a while. Probably longer than you've been >practicing law. Since I don't practice law, I would HAVE to agree with that also, 100%! :-) I admire your search into this interesting topic. Lots of food for thought in your post, and in the replies. David 1) >>It IS very true that the moves produced could not be covered under any >>copyright. > >>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.