Author: Uri Blass
Date: 18:09:39 06/18/04
Go up one level in this thread
On June 18, 2004 at 20:47:41, Ed Trice wrote: > >>>I'm confused. You posted Gothic Chess match results for CapaGNU at: >>> >>>http://www.gothicchess.org/matches.html >>> >>>How is this possible unless CapaGNU plays Gothic Chess? > > >I referred to this program as "CapaGNU Modified". > >>Also why use the term "Pre-patent exemption" if you also say "That program is >>not even close to intersecting the intellectual property claimed >>in the Gothic Chess invention." >> >>Why not just say that it's not violating the patent? >> > >For three reasons: > >1. The program was created prior to the patent. >2. The program in no way exhibits a "prior art" conflict with Gothic Chess. >3. Modifying this program to play Gothic Chess cannot infringe on the patent. > >>And any program which works like CapaGNU isn't violating the patent either. This >>means that people can write engines which play Capablanca chess and allow for >>arbitrary starting positions because they wouldn't even be close to violating >>your IP. It shouldn't matter if they were written before or after the patent, >>because CapaGNU establishes prior-art for this behavior. You can't wish away >>prior-art by granting "exemptions." > >Not according to patent law. Your second-to-last statements is 100% false. Your >last statement is not applicable. > >If someone creates a program to play Capablanca Chess today, they are permitted >to do so. If they create a feature for editing the board that allows the program >to play Gothic Chess, with alogorithms specific to Gothic Chess, they have >infringed on the patent. > >Patent law prevents modification of "different things" to take on the functional >equivalent of intellectual property protected by patents. > >Think about it. > >> >>I assume that the name "Gothic Chess" is trademarked, you have a lot of >>copyrighted materials which you sell, and you have good ideas for how to promote >>Gothic Chess. Why even worry about patenting the starting position? > >The starting position is only a subset of the patent. The METHOD of playing the >entire game is covered. > >I am not going to offer a course in Method Patent Law here. > >You want to take your chances with me in court, it is your right. > >I will win, surely as Capablanca could spank Nimzo. I hope that somebody will really take his(her) chances with you in court and that you are going to lose. Justice simply tells me that you should lose but I am not expert in law. I do not know about previous case when somebody won in court about similiar case. I see no difference between this and a patent about the following position: bn1qkbnr/1p1p1p1p/r7/p1p1p1p1/P1P1P1P1/R7/1P1P1P1P/BN1QKBNR w Kk A lot of programs can play it inspite of the fact that they were not design for this position so for the same reason it is logical that a program for Capablaca chess will be able to play gothic chess. If you can complain about a program that can play gothic chess another person can also complain about many programs that can play the position that I posted. Uri
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.