Author: Robert Hyatt
Date: 14:41:22 08/25/04
Go up one level in this thread
I subscribe to a normal "legal philosophy" from the US. For a "crime" to be committed, a couple of things are needed. (1) Intent. You need to knowingly break the law. IE if you walk into a store, see a dollar bill laying on the floor, and you pick it up without thinking, you _could_ be accused of theft of property. But there was no intent since the floor is not a normal place for someone to leave "property" that is valuable. No crime was committed. I believe this case fits that scenario. (2) Victim. Someone has to be victimized, directly or indirectly. He's not tried to enter any ACM chess events which would victimize participants. He has not publicly claimed that his code was 100% original that I have seen, so I am not a victim. This is an unfortunate event, but one that doesn't leave me nearly as aggravated as some of the other more famous cases, like bionic, le petite, voyager, et. al. They definitely claimed the code to be original when it was not.
This page took 0.02 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.