Author: Will Singleton
Date: 16:23:13 08/25/04
Go up one level in this thread
On August 25, 2004 at 17:41:22, Robert Hyatt wrote: >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. That's just plain weird. That scenario has nothing in common with the case at hand. > >(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. So it has to be an ACM event? El Chinito has played in many tournaments, both entered by the author and third-party events. They claim a copyright. Finally, by not indicating that it was based on Crafty, they make a de facto claim of originality. If that's not victimizing the computer chess community, I don't know what is.
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.