Author: GuyHaworth
Date: 15:40:28 06/07/04
Go up one level in this thread
As I requested in the previous thread on this subject, an English translation of
the 'complaint' is essential - at least for those of us constrained to English
by our lack of capability in German.
Also, it's not reliable to argue the case from the point of view of English law,
even if the Berne Convention is the commonly recognised baseline agreement.
However, doing just that:
a) the complainant must demonstrate the existence of 'prior art', and justify
their statement that this 'art(efact)' has been copied without permission,
b) as Eugene says, the EGTs themselves are 'pro bono' and out there
they are not therefore the 'prior art'
c) the definition of the set of EGTs comes from chess: no prior art there
d) the packaging is Chessbase's - including the layout of files on the CD
if the CD-layout from the 'alternative supplier' is identical ...
that suggests that there might have been 'CD-to-CD' copying
this would legally not be a good thing to do!
See also:
http://whatiscopyright.org/
http://www.templetons.com/brad/copymyths.html
http://www.cybercrime.gov/netact.htm ... good luck
g
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.