An Excerpt of Relevant Messages from the SEA vs. Phil Katz (PKARC) Message Thread -------------------------------------------------- Downloaded from Compu$erve's IBMSW Sig (18-SEP-88) -------------------------------------------------- (The complete file, included within the archive, is over 180k. This file is an excerpt of directly relevant messages, totaling about 63k, in the same order as found in the main file. -------------------------------------------------- #: 212843 S9/Hot Topic [S] 18-Sep-88 00:52:35 Sb: #212713-#PK settlement details Fm: Steve Manes (Magpie) 76237,657 To: Tom Neff 76556,2536 (X) I had all these guys (Thom, Phil, Rahul, Dean Cooper and even an occasionally lurking Vern Buerg) in a several months-long conference on my BBS about file archivers a little over a year ago. In fact, both Phil's lawyer and Thom Henderson requested that archived conference just prior to their legal encounter. (It's still available for download on my BBS in the general COMPUTERS discussion if anyone's interested). Anyway, after several months of debate I had benchmarks and archiver timings falling out of my disk drive. There was little doubt that PKARC was somewhat faster and tighter than ZOO and a great improvement over ARC. If I had to choose between using PKARC or ARC I would choose the former. My argument has never been with PKARC's usefulness or technical superiority; it's been with the unfortunate choice by Phil Katz to corrupt the .ARC format with his own. On the other hand, Dean Cooper's DWC beat PKARC in most departments, which I guess poses a rhetorical question about why all these people who defend PKARC on the basis of its being an advancement in state of the art weren't using Dean's obscure archiver? DWC is 100% assembly and uses a larger string table to yield both faster archive timimgs and smaller archives. Dean worked like a dog on his archiver, created a real winner (with some beautiful Assy code) and the DOS world ignored him. I felt so bad about it that I included DWC as a supported archiver in Magpie, hoping that it would help popularize it. It didn't. #: 211628 S9/Hot Topic [S] 13-Sep-88 02:07:47 Sb: #211443-#PK* Was Never Necessary! Fm: Dave Hardy 72371,20 To: SysOp Don Watkins 76703,750 (X) Don: I'm getting tired about all this. My conclusions are as follows: 1) IBMNET is blatantly pro SEA; not so surprising in light of the refusal to support PKXARC when it clearly did a job that nothing else did; 2) The non-lawyers practicing law on here make the legal profession look good; 3) The issue is MONOPOLY in the classic populist sense; nothing you or anyone else says can hide the basic issue; 4) Please tell your friends at SEA that I intend to keep using the word ARC, the extension ARC, any ARC file that I cam find, and obviously there is nothing they can do about it. If they disagree I am delighted to accept service and we will test their claims against my monopoly theory. You can tell SEA that they smell of extortion, and I will accept service of a libel claim also. 5) As a matter of curiosity does corporate CIS have any influence on the SISOPS views here? If not, why do they wish to eliminate PK? 6) if "ARC" is a valid trademark I'm an Albanian prostitute! Surely you know that. If not why not ask the CIS law department for an opinion; or would that spoil the broth?! Forgive the heat of passion, but I have stood mute for a GD long time, and enough is enough. I figure there is a 1% chance that this message will appear. If I am wrong, you have my apologies in advance. Dave Hardy #: 211828 S9/Hot Topic [S] 13-Sep-88 22:04:19 Sb: #211647-#PK* Was Never Necessary! Fm: Dave Hardy 72371,20 To: SysOp Chris Dunford 76703,2002 (X) I will save space and reply to both you and Don at once. Since you have accepted my apology before being furnished it is perhaps redundant, but I do apologize anyway. My venting of spleen about censorship was clearly out of line. I was trying to make two legal points in the hope that the debate could focus on legitimate issues. (One should not try to make a legal point when frustrated; your words will come back to haunt you.) My first point is this: The trademark issue is a loser to SEA and should not influence any decisions or legal actions. There can be little doubt that ARC has become a generic term and cannot create proprietary rights for SEA by way of trademrk registration or application. A trademark is classified grammatically as an adjective. It tells the consumer about the product. Since it is an adjective there must be a noun for it to modify and that noun is the generic name of the product, i.e. "ARC" file compressor. The trademark should never be abrieviated, should not be used in the plural, in a descriptive sense or as a verb or noun. Clearly we "arc" and "unarc" files (use as a verb), talk about ARC programs (use as a noun). Like "aspirin", "cellophane" and "escalater" the term is generic. So let's stop defending SEA on the ground that they have a trademark. My legal point about a plaintiff's attempt to monopolize in a relevant market as a defense and basis for a treble damage counterclaim was apparently misunderstood. I think it valid and will outline it if any further details would be of interest. With PK neutralized the SEA percentage of relevant market must produce a Herfendahl index of high magnitude. Any attempt by SEA to defend its alleged trademark righs should be met by a treble damage counterclaim. Dave Hardy #: 212107 S9/Hot Topic [S] 14-Sep-88 22:37:25 Sb: #211998-#PK* Was Never Necessary! Fm: Dave Hardy 72371,20 To: George Kuzmowycz 76266,2441 (X) I find it difficult to reply to your message. Part of a lawyer's stock in trade is ability to render an opinion based on application of known facts to the law. I think enough is known to render an opinion that a SEA trademark of "ARC" is invalid. Actually, the probabilities of that result are extremely high. I would be delighted to hear an expression of a different view from a qualified lawyer. Dave Hardy #: 211501 S9/Hot Topic [S] 12-Sep-88 16:21:25 Sb: #211484-#PK* Was Never Necessary! Fm: Robert Blacher 72677,3305 To: Tom Neff 76556,2536 (X) I guess we just disagree, Tom. In my view, SEA has made it quite clear that it believes it owns ARC lock, stock and barrel. Those ownership claims extend to the name (trademarked), the code (copyrighted) and even the format (a dubious copyright claim, but nonetheless it has been asserted here by SEA's representatives). In any event, in the real world you can't separate the code from the format. Anyone who wants to write an ARChive utility will need to consults SEA's code as it's the only documentation that exists of the format. Even if they don't do that, short of developing their code in a "clean room", they expose themselves to claims from SEA. Vern's ARC utilities are fine. But, they're not the whole story. My BBS, PCBoard, has a built-in ARCV function (ironically, it uses QuickBasic ARCV code that Vern made available for free). PCBoard is commercial, not shareware. Must the authors seek a license from SEA? The board also runs various DOOR programs that extract files from archives, read files in archives, and (soon) will build archives of new mail. All of this is done internally, not shelling out to ARCA/ARCE, etc. The code is written in Turbo Pascal and the DOOR programs are shareware. Must those authors seek a license from SEA? The fact that there are questions, not answers, in this message is the reason why continued use of ARCs by BBS systems is in jeopardy. #: 211656 S9/Hot Topic [S] 13-Sep-88 07:34:05 Sb: #211501-#PK* Was Never Necessary! Fm: Tom Neff 76556,2536 To: Robert Blacher 72677,3305 (X) Except that none of those worries really wash. Foray's already been here and said that it's not SEA's intent to harrass those other authors. The business with a voluntary $1 license is pretty smart and if I were developing anything ARC-compatible I would definitely go for it. There is clearly a difference of degree *and* kind between the PK episode and all the rest of the ARC support software; I think SEA recognizes it as well as we do. I also disagree that you have to use SEA's code to parse the ARC format. It's not that complex a format - you could make up a block diagram rather easily. My own code would be unlikely to resemble SEA's even if it were in a comparable language. #: 211506 S9/Hot Topic [S] 12-Sep-88 17:18:49 Sb: #PK Response to SEA Fm: JOHN BOYD 75076,2466 To: ALL The file SEAPKX.ARC has been uploaded containing messages related to Phil Katz's response to SEA. The following message from Phil Katz to Jim Dunnigan is a direct quote (with Mr. Katz's permission) to a message left by Mr.Foray on Sept 7: f: PHIL KATZ t: JIM DUNNIGAN (Rcvd) s: R: SEA RESPONDS cc: NICK KEES Jim, Holy cow! If Nick says it is OK, please post the following response to that message: 1) SEA has FOUR full-time employees. Until yesterday (9/9) PKWARE had only two full-time employees and two part-time employees, both who had other full-time jobs. On Friday 9/9 my mother now works full-time for PKWARE, making it 3 full-time people, including myself. The remaining part-time person is my sister, by the way. Since the assets and holdings of either company were never disclosed, claiming that PKWARE is larger than SEA is totally ludicrous. SEA has more products, including at least two commercial products, namely AXE and SEADOG, too. 2) It was the joint consensus of both parties as to what portions of the agreement were confidential. I did not instruct my attorney that it was the desire of myself or PKWARE that ANY portion of the agreement be confidential. 3) We did not steal their code. As the public Consent Judgment document, signed by both parties, says, PKWARE did not admit to ANY fault or wrongdoing. I certainly did not admit to stealing their code under oath as Mr. Foray claims either. >Phil> #: 211769 S9/Hot Topic [S] 13-Sep-88 18:46:11 Sb: #211506-#PK Response to SEA Fm: Andrew Foray [SEA] 72617,1167 To: JOHN BOYD 75076,2466 (X) At the time of the suit, SEA had one employee other then the two partners, for a total of 3. (One being both my sister and Thom's wife) We have since hired another person full time and just recently one more to help with support. So far this year they have made twice as much money as we have. We are trying to market other products. One has just been announced this month and hardly makes us a giant. The opinion on this forum was of "BIG SEA" vs Phil Katz. My point was that this is not true. PKWARE Inc. at least as big, (and I believe somewhat larger) then SEA. We never instructed our attorney that we desired any of these details be kept secret. If I may quote (with his permission) Mr. John Navas, who was the expert witness in this case. He had access to the source code of both program under seal of the court. "I have concluded from extensive analysis that portions of the defendant's programs were substantially copied directly from plaintiff's copyrighted source code." #: 211907 S9/Hot Topic [S] 14-Sep-88 07:19:19 Sb: #211769-#PK Response to SEA Fm: Don Gloistein 76010,474 To: Andrew Foray [SEA] 72617,1167 (X) Andrew, >>We never instructed our attorney... Interesting, SEA and PK must have a phantom attorney drawing up the agreements. BOTH of you have disavoid the intent for a 'secret' being kept. I really wish all of this had gone to court. At least those transcripts would be available for a fee. Then this could be kept to rest. I have made my mind up on the PRINCIPLE's involved. Thus will be converting away from all archives and redo any archive I have to download. (Using Vern's tools.) I had to give up arcmaster (sorry Andrew), but the principle of a public domain format and algorithm is too important to me. BTW, the basic compression techniques have been around so long, it is interesting the expert didn't also mention that arc lifted code intact. I have stayed out of this debate because I don't think the facts are before us, don't think they will be before us, and the question is moot in any case. I do thank you for the lawsuit (since I don't owe the lawyer's fees). The suit has pointed out to many of us the need for an archiver that NO CLAIMS for their own property. I have said it before, I will support someone who develops a pd format and source and lets others copyright the interface and utilities. BUT NOT THE ARCHIVE FILE STRUCTURE OR COMPRESSION/DECOMPRESSION ROUTINES. --Don #: 212227 S9/Hot Topic [S] 15-Sep-88 10:28:21 Sb: #211907-#PK Response to SEA Fm: Andrew Foray [SEA] 72617,1167 To: Don Gloistein 76010,474 (X) We have made our statements, and PKWARE has made theirs. I doubt that either one of us will convince the other here. And the rest of the users will make their own decision. This type of forum can not settle this type of conflict. What is important is what happens next. We have never claimed copyright to the compression algorithms, and have just stated that we don't claim the file format. We don't want to cause problems for the BBS users or sysops. The users still have the same choice of ARC or ARCE/ARCA or PKARC/PKXARC or whatever. #: 212134 S9/Hot Topic [S] 14-Sep-88 23:29:19 Sb: #211769-#PK Response to SEA Fm: Phil Katz 72321,3367 To: Andrew Foray [SEA] 72617,1167 (X) Andy, You have now said on at least one occasion that I have admitted, under oath, to stealing SEA's source code. I was present at all the precedings where I was under oath (naturally) and also have access to the complete transcipts of these procedings as recorded by the court reporter. Please tell me what/when/where I made this alleged admission, or please retract all such statements immediately. >Phil> #: 211754 S9/Hot Topic [S] 13-Sep-88 17:23:32 Sb: #PK settlement details Fm: Andrew Foray [SEA] 72617,1167 To: Basil Copeland/CRC 74240,1161 (X) What we claim copyright to is our code. The actual compression algorithms we do NOT claim copyright to. We (and most shareware authors) do not allow people to modify our program and sell the result. The source code is available to allow shareware authors to see how the file is arranged to allow utilities to look at ARC format archives. We also allow porting of ARC to other operating systems and machines. We also claim trademark rights to the ARC name. When users see ARC as a program name, they think of us and our program. For someone to copy our program name, they are relying on our name (and efforts and market) to help sell their program. If you doubt this, ask Irene how many calls we get for support of PKARC and other such programs. Also, if a program like that has a bug, we get blamed. This also has happened. People even call us to order "PKARC, the latest version of ARC". I would not think it ethical to copy someones' code and name, and sell the result, without at least talking to them and getting permission. #: 211780 S9/Hot Topic [S] 13-Sep-88 19:43:58 Sb: #211754-#PK settlement details Fm: Basil Copeland/CRC 74240,1161 To: Andrew Foray [SEA] 72617,1167 (X) I agree with you that it's not ethical to steal someone else's code. I am not in an informed position to know whether or not that happened in this case. *Assuming* the facts of the case are as you state, I can understand why you would feel the need to protect your interests in the original code. Of course...how much of the code was "yours" to begin with is an interesting question. As for your plight with users who don't know the difference between "ARC" and "PKARC," I think the fault is your own for choosing a generic and undifferentiated name. While I would support your right to seek a judgment against someone who "steals your code" (for commercial purposes) I think you are way out of line in claiming a trademark right to the "ARC name." Apart from the questionable legal merits, which others have opined upon, I find SEA's actions distasteful from a user point of view. Why? Well, as I mentioned in my previous message to you, the pc community is very user oriented. To attempt to lay claim to a name as generic and undifferentiated as "arc" shows little regard for the user community. -Basil #: 211819 S9/Hot Topic [S] 13-Sep-88 21:44:46 Sb: #211780-#PK settlement details Fm: Andrew Foray [SEA] 72617,1167 To: Basil Copeland/CRC 74240,1161 (X) You disagree that someone building a program to act like ours and giving it a name similar to ours is using our name recognition and market effort to sell his program. That is what a trademark is. (As far as I understand, I am not a lawyer) Would you agree that if someone had built a better compression program, not using our code or imitating our files, and then gave it a name not similar to ours, (say PKPACK or ZOO for example) he would have had as much success as we have seen? Would it have replaced ARC ? #: 211941 S9/Hot Topic [S] 14-Sep-88 10:25:18 Sb: #211819-PK settlement details Fm: Alan Rowberg 76703,4421 To: Andrew Foray [SEA] 72617,1167 (X) But SEA does not have a registered trademark! SEA has applied, but that is something entirely different, and I bet you do not get it. I sure wish we got more of the straight story from you. #: 211781 S9/Hot Topic [S] 13-Sep-88 19:44:07 Sb: #stop SEA? Fm: Basil Copeland/CRC 74240,1161 To: all While I'm willing to let the jury remain out on SEA vs. PK, I'm not so inclined to sit by and do nothing about the latest revelations about SEA's trying to register ARC as a trademark. I plan to talk to a lawyer first thing in the morning about what is necessary to fight this. I can't imagine that the cost of filing an objection should be too much, but I'm wondering if anyone here would like to join in, so as to defray the cost somewhat. Equally important would be factual evidence anyone might have that would be use in demonstrating that "arc" is generic, and/or predates SEA's use of it. -Basil #: 211812 S9/Hot Topic [S] 13-Sep-88 20:56:31 Sb: #211781-#stop SEA? Fm: SysOp Chris Dunford 76703,2002 To: Basil Copeland/CRC 74240,1161 (X) Basil - I personally would have no objection whatsoever if SEA were trying to trademark "ARC" as the name of a program. If they are, in fact, trying to trademark ARC to refer to files, file extensions, and the like, that makes me unhappy. *If* it is accurate, as stated in another message on the board, that SEA is complaining about PK's use of the phrase "de-arc-ing", then I think they have crossed a line that should have remained uncrossed. I note in message #211739 that SEA appears to claim that their date of first use was March, 1985. You might want to contact Computer Innovations in Tinton Falls, NJ, and ask when they began using the ARCH program and the file suffix ARC for their C86 compiler source libraries (by sheer coincidence, no doubt, C86 was the compiler used to produce ARC.EXE). I am quite certain that this was prior to March, 1985. If you do call, try to talk to George (I don't know his last name). He's the head honcho and, if anyone would know, he would. -Chris #: 211840 S9/Hot Topic [S] 13-Sep-88 22:55:11 Sb: #211812-#stop SEA? Fm: Basil Copeland/CRC 74240,1161 To: SysOp Chris Dunford 76703,2002 (X) Thanks for the info. I know that the question of trying to register "ARC" as a program is a judgment call. But in addition to complaining about people talking about "de-arcing" files, I don't tink that their use of ARC should be construed to preclude other variations on the term. For instance, there is DBASE II, and RBASE, with "base" being a substring common to both. Since I don't know the merits of the case, I really don't know why PK gave up the right to use "ARC" in the name of his program. It doesn't strike me as any more offensive than all the variations on "BASE" that abound in this market. What shall we say about LARC, NARC, ARCMASTER, etc? I guess I just have strong feelings about the generic and undifferentiated nature of the term "arc." Now, if they want to register "SEAarc," or "Sea-ARC," that's another matter altogether. -Basil #: 211909 S9/Hot Topic [S] 14-Sep-88 07:19:41 Sb: #211840-#stop SEA? Fm: Don Gloistein 76010,474 To: Basil Copeland/CRC 74240,1161 (X) Basil, Larc, Narc, Arcmaster will probably be okay until they make more money than SEA does in registrations. Then they will be fair game. --Don #: 212126 S9/Hot Topic [S] 14-Sep-88 23:14:36 Sb: #211909-stop SEA? Fm: Phil Katz 72321,3367 To: Don Gloistein 76010,474 (X) Don, >>Larc, Narc, Arcmaster will probably be okay until they make more money than SEA does in registrations. Then they will be fair game. Well, SEA (or their legal representatives) have already contacted Gary Conway, author of NARC. >Phil> #: 211997 S9/Hot Topic [S] 14-Sep-88 15:20:46 Sb: #211812-#stop SEA? Fm: Frank Haber 72115,232 To: SysOp Chris Dunford 76703,2002 (X) Chris, I'm no archivist, but didn't .ARC files appear in K&P in the mid-seventies? Didn't Grogono have them in his book, too? I know I saw them with Pascal MT+ in 1982, which I think was ported to DOS shortly thereafter. Even in the PC-cum-DOS environment, the concept of a one-step extraction from something named an Archive with a filetype of .ARC existed very early on. Yes these archives were repeated-string compression only, and less useful than the contemporary .LBR's, but they were there, and called what they are now. What did CI C86 give you? #: 212001 S9/Hot Topic [S] 14-Sep-88 16:08:21 Sb: #211997-#stop SEA? Fm: SysOp Chris Dunford 76703,2002 To: Frank Haber 72115,232 (X) I don't see anything about archives in Grogono. K&P demonstrated a program called ARCHIVE that managed files containing multiple members, but there was no default extension at all (K&P code supposedly being portable, they wouldn't be able to assume anything about the structure of OS-dependent file names). Neither K&P's ARCHIVE or CI's ARCH did any compression at all. They were simply tools that allowed you to keep a bunch of files together. ARCH and ARCHIVE had a similar set of options: U (update), T (table), X (extract), P (Print), and D (delete). They sound vaguely familiar... CI's ARCH did use a file extension of ARC. Both ARCH and ARCHIVE used a distributed directory, as does ARC (in contrast with LUx, which used a central directory). Oh, _Software Tools_ was originally published in 1976, but I can't confirm that ARCHIVE was in the original edition. It is in my copy of _Software Tools in Pascal_ dated 1981. I have at least one CI manual dated 1/85 with ARCH documentation. -Chris #: 212011 S9/Hot Topic [S] 14-Sep-88 17:20:39 Sb: #212001-stop SEA? Fm: Frank Haber 72115,232 To: SysOp Chris Dunford 76703,2002 (X) Good, you had the books (I gave 'em away to someone who was really going to use them). Just to get this on record: I remember a book by Jerry Pournelle's son (!) which translated K&P into Pascal MT+. One of the demonstration programs was (I think) an expansion of K&P's Archive, with repeated-char compression. There also was an ARC program, with extension .ARC in CP/M, which *preceded* the "Grenewetzki" (Vern-style, not Zenith-style) .LBR programs. Its inferior compression doomed it, but the name and the function were the same. "Archive" is such an obvious moniker that I'm sure some mainframe type will come up with a citation from 1898. #: 212093 S9/Hot Topic [S] 14-Sep-88 22:01:33 Sb: #211997-#stop SEA? Fm: John Bridges 73307,606 To: Frank Haber 72115,232 (X) Also MANX has been using .ARC files for a very very very long time, the extracter is called ARCV and the files are collections of source (and other) files. They are not compressed, but the extensions dates back long before SEA showed up. #: 212197 S9/Hot Topic [S] 15-Sep-88 08:36:40 Sb: #212093-stop SEA? Fm: Bob Tolz 70475,1071 To: John Bridges 73307,606 (X) My trademarks attorney friend indicated to me that someone with an economic interest in opposing an application would be appropriate for that position. Would you think that Manx would be that person/company? #: 212112 S9/Hot Topic [S] 14-Sep-88 22:44:16 Sb: #211812-#stop SEA? Fm: Tom Neff 76556,2536 To: SysOp Chris Dunford 76703,2002 (X) Only small point I'll make is this: You would maybe want to separate SEA's particular bill of gripes against PK, from the set of conditions they want to apply to the world in general. The settlement they agreed to with PK in response to their specific grievances, may contain terms more onerous than they're claiming everyone has to obey. That happens. What I get from Foray's words is this: ARC they definitely want to own as a program name; ARC as a file extension, maybe they wish they could but I don't hear him claiming it per se (sounds rough to enforce); third party ARC manipulation is OK as long as authorship is unmistakeably disassociated with SEA; but they offer a $1 license in case you're paranoid enough to want protection not just against their own future legal action, but (I think this significant) the legal whims of anyone who might buy them out in future. Personally if I were doing anything in this area I would jump at the $1 license. We pay Bellevue or Scotts Valley hundreds of times more for the right to create our programs anyway. #: 212130 S9/Hot Topic [S] 14-Sep-88 23:21:17 Sb: #212112-#stop SEA? Fm: Phil Katz 72321,3367 To: Tom Neff 76556,2536 (X) Tom, >Personally if I were doing anything in this area I would jump at the $1 license. I think that this could have some very incredible consequences. What if every time someone wrote a program that could read a DBASE file they had to pay Ashton Tate $1, or Lotus for 123 files or WordPerfect for .WP files etc.? >Phil> #: 212144 S9/Hot Topic [S] 14-Sep-88 23:48:52 Sb: #212130-#stop SEA? Fm: Tom Neff 76556,2536 To: Phil Katz 72321,3367 Right, Phil. Why bother to spend a dollar to safeguard your bread and butter product. Like what are they going to do, sue you?????! :-) #: 212555 S9/Hot Topic [S] 16-Sep-88 19:50:43 Sb: #212144-stop SEA? Fm: rick segal 76276,2706 To: Tom Neff 76556,2536 (X) Bad taste Tom, really bad..... Rick #: 212257 S9/Hot Topic [S] 15-Sep-88 13:35:12 Sb: #212130-stop SEA? Fm: Barry Simon 76004,1664 To: Phil Katz 72321,3367 Welcome to CIS Phil. It seems to me the issue isn't a $1 royalty - if Lotus had somehow established its right to its format but agreed to only charge $1 per program (not per copy), I think no one would have a problem. The issue is that if one accepts the principle that royalties are owed, then if there are upgrades, you are at the mercy of the person whose right to royalties you have accepted. - Barry #: 211925 S9/Hot Topic [S] 14-Sep-88 09:12:03 Sb: #211781-#stop SEA? Fm: Bob Tolz 70475,1071 To: Basil Copeland/CRC 74240,1161 (X) Basil, I am informed by a trademark attorney with whom I do business that the trademarks office has first crack at denying the application. If they do not deny the application, then they publish it to start a period for opposition. The opposition period lasts 30 days, so it is critical to watch for publication. Ordinarily, trademark attorneys hire a "watch" service to do this, and he mentioned the Thomson firm which I saw listed as provider of the IQUEST service here. If you GO IQUEST and browse through the trademarks section there, you'll spot an 800 number for them. Bob #: 211943 S9/Hot Topic [S] 14-Sep-88 10:33:30 Sb: #211925-#stop SEA? Fm: Basil Copeland/CRC 74240,1161 To: Bob Tolz 70475,1071 (X) Thanks for the tip. I'll see what I can do to follow up on this. -Basil #: 212264 S9/Hot Topic [S] 15-Sep-88 13:44:21 Sb: #211943-#stop SEA? Fm: Bob Tolz 70475,1071 To: Basil Copeland/CRC 74240,1161 (X) I have just uploaded a file to DL11 called TRDMRK.ARC which I gathered from a local BBS. It contains evidence of use of the words "ARC" and "ARCHIVE" way back in CP/M days. Heck, now that I read the file, I myself recall having used those programs way back when I had my Osborne, long before IBM was on the scene with personal computers. They were written by Mike Rubenstein, who had also written a communications package for the Osborne, and had graciously included his archiving programs with an OTERM disk, a communications program for the Osborne. I'm sure Mike is on CIS here somewhere. #: 212299 S9/Hot Topic [S] 15-Sep-88 17:56:05 Sb: #212264-#stop SEA? Fm: Basil Copeland/CRC 74240,1161 To: Bob Tolz 70475,1071 (X) Thanks for uploading that file. This issue has certainly stimulated a lot of recollections about when and where "arc" came from. I have all my Osborne disks and CP/M books "archived" in a storage facility. I lived with the beast for two years, beginning late 1981. The machine itself sits, like a museum peice, next to the ibm clone I use at home. Hasn't been turned on in a couple of years. -Basil #: 212861 S9/Hot Topic [S] 18-Sep-88 05:05:02 Sb: #212299-stop SEA? Fm: Ron Fowler 72177,1114 To: Basil Copeland/CRC 74240,1161 (X) Basil, TRDMRK.ARC does indeed establish the prior use of ARC as a file type, and ARCH as a program name (in the file, you should see a circa-1982 message from me introducing the ARCH programs to some sysops in the Midwest, along with some suggestions for standards; sadly, my writing has improved little since then). It is my understanding (disclaimer: I'm not a lawyer -- I once had a lawyer threaten to bash me for re-stating some stuff from a copyright office circular in a public forum!) that you don't have to have a financial interest to quash a trademark application. While I don't have specifics, there is supposedly a formal procedure for challanging an application. I'm sure the information is available from either the Copyrights Office or the Trademarks Office (they may both be the same, I just don't remember). My feeling is that ARCH establishes enough prior use to mount a successful challenge to SEA's application. And I don't see how for the luva Mike *anyone* can trademark a filetype! There are only 17,575 possible 3-character alpha filetypes (large, but very finite). This whole affair underscores the fact that protection of the courts in 1988 is available only to those who can afford it! --Ron #: 212155 S9/Hot Topic [S] 15-Sep-88 01:17:14 Sb: #212123-ARC used in 1984 Fm: Roger Schlafly 76067,511 To: Phil Katz 72321,3367 Phil, welcome to IBMSW. Regarding the "ARC" trademark claim, I am told that there was a popular similar program written by Jim Loposhinski for CP/M long before SEA got into the act. It was also called "ARC". You have any info on this? Roger #: 212190 S9/Hot Topic [S] 15-Sep-88 08:10:11 Sb: #212123-ARC used in 1984 Fm: Paul Mayer (GRAB Plus) 70040,645 To: Phil Katz 72321,3367 Welcome Phil! Glad to see that your here! Yes That was my point! They used the file extensions for their name ARC from the compiler they used, then claim a TRADEMARK on same. I knew in the back of my mind I saw that somewhere, it just took me awhile to find it. Now if something can be done about this BS claim of theirs. Again Phil glad to hear from you. - Paul #: 212447 S9/Hot Topic [S] 16-Sep-88 09:35:14 Sb: #212123-#ARC used in 1984 Fm: Mike Davenport 76676,1362 To: Phil Katz 72321,3367 Phil, You've probably already seen it, but there is a file on ExecPc called OLD-ARC.ARC. It contains information on the CPM ARCH programs, copyright Michael M Rubenstein, 1982. I saw it originally on USENET via Portal. Seems like if anyone wanted to press it, they could win the trademark issue with ARC (tm) and keep SEA (c)(tm)(etc) from claiming rights on such a general term as ARC (tm). (wondering if all them (tm)'s will prevent possible abuse to my body and mind from SEA). #: 212079 S9/Hot Topic [S] 14-Sep-88 21:26:40 Sb: #SEA/PK Out of Control Fm: Steve Stern 70327,135 To: SysOp Don Watkins 76703,750 (X) OK, world, the sets of SEA/PK threads have been grinding on now for a couple of weeks and more than a few megabytes, and NOTHING has been accomplished. I'd like to suggest the following: 1. Thom and Phil should be invited to participate in separate, scheduled, and moderated conferences in the CIS Convention area. Anyone and everyone will have the chance to politely ask whatever they want and, within the bounds of their negotiated agreement, Thom and Phil will answer. End of rumors, innuendo, and various knife-in-the-back attributions. 2. To those who violently disagree with SEA's assertion that they, and only they, can produce (or issue a license for) programs which create .ARC files... Go ahead and write your own program which creates an .ARC file. Sell one copy and dare SEA to sue you. The whole group can then set up a legal defense fund and pay to argue all the issues through the courts; you cannot settle! 3. Finally, let's stop arguing about whether arc* or pk* are the better programs. They both work and both accomplish the same result. Use what you want. Eventually, the market will choose to continue the .ARC "standard" or abandon it in favor of something else. Why sweat it now? Let's wind this thing down. Phil has promised a new compression/library scheme. SEA can't stand still. Let's wait for something REAL to happen and evaluate it when its here. packing up the soapbox> Steve #: 212152 S9/Hot Topic [S] 15-Sep-88 01:10:25 Sb: #212079-#SEA/PK Out of Control Fm: Roger Schlafly 76067,511 To: Steve Stern 70327,135 (X) Steve, I don't think your suggestions will do much. 1. If SEA and PK weren't able to resolve their differences in court, I doubt they'd be able to settle them on CompuServe. 2. No one is likely to want to draw SEA into a lawsuit just to settle a hypothetical legal question. It is too expensive. PK spent $62k and he didn't even get a decision. 3. The market place will not decide between SEA ARC and PK***. At least not any more, as PK*** will be withdrawn from the market. A few things have been accomplished. The settlement agreement was made public. SEA has clarified their claims, including that SEA has the exclusive legal right to write programs to read and write ARC files. SEA and PK have directly contradicted each other regarding factual matters, and at least one of the parties is likely to be proven to be a vicious liar. We don't know all the facts, but we can now judge for ourselves whether SEA violated the non-disclosure agreement, whether PK*** 3.61 violated the settlement, whether SEA's claims about owning the ARC format are legally valid, and whether the parties have behaved in a responsible manner. Roger #: 212238 S9/Hot Topic [S] 15-Sep-88 11:04:37 Sb: #212152-#SEA/PK Out of Control Fm: Andrew Foray [SEA] 72617,1167 To: Roger Schlafly 76067,511 (X) SEA has stated our policy. We state that we do NOT have the exclusive legal right to read and write ARC compatable archives. Do you object to our claims to our own code? The BBS users can decide between ARC and PKARC. As the original statement stated, If you have a license for PKARC, it is valid. There is no legal reason to stop using PKARC or take it from your BBS. You are totaly correct in stating that this matter can not be settled here, and that everyone doesn't know all the facts. #: 212252 S9/Hot Topic [S] 15-Sep-88 13:27:40 Sb: #212238-#SEA/PK Out of Control Fm: Roger Schlafly 76067,511 To: Andrew Foray [SEA] 72617,1167 (X) >> SEA has stated our policy. We state that we do NOT have the exclusive legal >> right to read and write ARC compatable archives. I'd have to check the messages, but I believe that you or Wallace has said on this forum that SEA *can* restrict others from reading or writing ARC files, but that shareware and PD authors will be allowed to do so without lawsuits from SEA. This was the point of the $1 license fee. >> Do you object to our claims to our own code? Certainly not. >> The BBS users can decide between ARC and PKARC. As the original statement >> stated, If you have a license for PKARC, it is valid. There is no legal >> reason to stop using PKARC or take it from your BBS. PKARC has suddenly become a lot less attractive as it will not be supported after Jan. 1989. We might not see any more updates at all considering that SEA has filed an obnoxious legal action against PKWARE when they came out with PK*** 3.61. Roger #: 212428 S9/Hot Topic [S] 16-Sep-88 07:34:59 Sb: #212238-#SEA/PK Out of Control Fm: Mike Dingacci 74206,1747 To: Andrew Foray [SEA] 72617,1167 (X) As an observer of this ludicrous and childish battle between two "shareware" vendors, I am astonished at the lengths to which you will go to sabotage your competitor's business efforts. The idea that the word "ARC" belongs to ANYONE is ridiculous. In that case "PC" must belong to IBM, "COM" and "DDT" (a bug spray) to Digital Research, and "MS" (multiple sclerosis) to Microsoft. If all you need do is be the first one to file for a trademark, perhaps Merriam Webster can get a trademark on "DICTIONARY". After reading over copies of your complaints against "PK" (undoubtedly a trademark), it seems obvious that these legal maneuvers and your latest "licensing policy" are a rather transparent attempt to do two things: 1) Prevent BETTER competing programs from being distributed and, 2) Obtain the source code of any would-be competing archive programs. Your "claim to your own code", as you put it, would not be contested here or elsewhere if you would or <> publicly demonstrate that the PK programs actually CONTAIN any of that code. The fact that PK agreed to settle seems more an effort to avoid being bankrupted by legal costs than an admission of actual copyright infringement. Your statement that "... users can decide between ARC and PKARC" is ridiculous, since your agreement forces PKWARE to stop distributing the program in January. Your smug reiteration of the statements that "... everyone doesn't know all the facts" and "... this matter cannot be settled here" point up the fact that SEA apparently would like to keep the public ignorant of the true facts in this matter. (Bad for business?)... This whole nasty affair is literally going to destroy your business. In the process, you will stifle the efforts of many software developers who can't see themselves going through this kind of an ordeal just to distribute improved software. #: 212506 S9/Hot Topic [S] 16-Sep-88 14:48:16 Sb: #212428-#SEA/PK Out of Control Fm: William J. Hinkle 71121,3211 To: Mike Dingacci 74206,1747 (X) You don't have a very sound foundation for what you think constitutes a (potentially) valid trademark. For example, Intel Corporation has a trademark on the letter "i". Take a look at the flyleaf of any Intel manual where they list their trademarks; the list is full of otherwise generic words: GENIUS, i, ICE, Insite, Library Manager, ONCE, PROMPT, SugarCube, for example. It appears to be a matter of context. IBM may not own "PC" (?) but they do appear to own "AT" and "/2" in certain contexts. #: 212553 S9/Hot Topic [S] 16-Sep-88 19:50:28 Sb: #212506-SEA/PK Out of Control Fm: rick segal 76276,2706 To: William J. Hinkle 71121,3211 Will, yer wrong, pal. Intel has a trademark on the style in which you see, not the letter "I". Mike, good thoughts! Rick #: 212524 S9/Hot Topic [S] 16-Sep-88 16:22:20 Sb: #212428-#SEA/PK Out of Control Fm: Andrew Foray [SEA] 72617,1167 To: Mike Dingacci 74206,1747 (X) Your comments show the reason I got involved in these discussions in the first place. You require us to PROVE our claim in a forum where is that is impossible, yet a comment that you state as "seems more an effort" is used to condemn us. If you want the true facts, feel free to compare the ARC source code with the PKARC 3.5 code yourself. And yes, this affair will hurt the industry. I know a few good programmers with programs of their own. None of us has the kind of money needed to bring a program to market. I suggested shareware. They always say: "No way, thats just giving it away" Last month I thought I had an answer to that one... #: 212554 S9/Hot Topic [S] 16-Sep-88 19:50:38 Sb: #212524-#SEA/PK Out of Control Fm: rick segal 76276,2706 To: Andrew Foray [SEA] 72617,1167 Andy, I resisted the temptation to blast away as I can respect one for having the guts (nuts!?) to come into a forum where you will never win. Your remarks about comparing the code is a little over to the left. I have compared the code along with experts who do that sorta thing for a living (court trials, etc). I'm pretty good, Andy, and I can't see the case for a charge of stealing code. I'll admit some of the stuff was exact BUT it centered around DOS calls, etc. You can only call INT21 so many ways. If I assume Phil used the public information and then reversed engineered your code, I can see where some of the code falls pretty close. But, Andy, stealing chunks of code? That's pretty tough stuff. Some how I get the impression that this stuff is coming from your living legend partner and not you. After all, he has been known to shove his foot in his mouth up to the kneecap. So where is the coders answer to Mort Downey these days? As dumb as this may sound, why don't ALL you guys put the egos away, and work together on a truly good product. Phil, Thom , and you can certainly make a bigger splash for the positive together. In any event, good luck as I believe if the facts are on your side you do deserve to be vindicated. If not, well..... Rick #: 212653 S9/Hot Topic [S] 17-Sep-88 00:50:09 Sb: #212428-SEA/PK Out of Control Fm: John Wilson 76414,624 To: Mike Dingacci 74206,1747 (X) >>Merriam Webster can get a trademark on DICTIONARY. And have the successors to Dr. Samuel Johnson, Oxford Univesity Press, sue them to death! (Johnson's dictionary came out 4 years before Webster's.) In the midst of your flame is an excellent point, no one has proven that any code was swiped (or not for that matter) as the records are sealed. That move, for whatever reason it was agreed to, has hurt SEA more than PK here. If neither side asked for confidentiality, why did they sign it? (On the advice of out lawyers is the probable response.) jrw #: 212582 S9/Hot Topic [S] 16-Sep-88 21:48:14 Sb: #212152-SEA/PK Out of Control Fm: Steve Stern 70327,135 To: Roger Schlafly 76067,511 (X) But, we can't judge whether Phil was using their code, or whether SEA's claims had "legal weight". Just that Phil thought (I assume) that he could get out cheaper at $62K plus loss of future revenue by settling instead of fighting. As to the marketplace... PK* may be withdrawn from distribution, but NOT from my disk. And SEA will have to do a lot of improvement and ehancement to get me to replace PK* with SEA-ARC*. Steve #: 212166 S9/Hot Topic [S] 15-Sep-88 02:50:16 Sb: #ARC Fm: Mark VanKekerix 72561,352 To: Andrew Foray [SEA] 72617,1167 (X) Regarding your policy statement that was recently uploaded, and the general situation with respect to ARC: It appears to me that SEA is attempting to copyright the ARC file format and the compression algorithms that make it possible (although I do not know if that sort of "copyright" is legally possible). I feel this is insulting to shareware utility authors and to the principle of SHAREware in general. I find it unreasonable that you expect fully commented and documented source code to any shareware programs that attempts to use the word "ARC" in any form, or that manipulates ARC format files. I have written several shareware programs, and I do *NOT* hand out the source code to anyone who asks for it (even if they promise to keep it confidential). The suggestion that you are entitled to any portion of whatever money may be made from such a program is also unacceptable (despite your generous terms). I believe your recent lawsuit against PKWARE to be against the best interests of the shareware idea, therefore I regret to inform you that I will be boycotting SEA products and suggesting to anyone else I can reach (including anyone else who is reading this message) that they do the same. I would like you to understand that I am NOT boycotting the ARC file format or any other utilities (including PKARC) that use it in any way. This boycott is aimed specifically at SEA for actions that I find detrimental to the shareware principle. I urge anyone reading this message to follow me in this boycott. We need to let SEA (and anyone else who is considering similar actions) know that we will not tolerate what they've done. #: 212226 S9/Hot Topic [S] 15-Sep-88 10:17:13 Sb: #212166-#ARC Fm: Andrew Foray [SEA] 72617,1167 To: Mark VanKekerix 72561,352 (X) 1. We never claimed copyright to the compression algorithms. 2. A lawyer, who is an expert in copyright and trademarks, says that we have those rights to the file format. Others say we do not. I do not know if we do or not. If we do, I can't see any good reason to push those claims. The market has already rejected a change to the format that was kept secret by its creator, so we don't have to prevent that. Our statement (I thought clearly) says that anyone (unless they have agreed otherwise) can use tha ARC file format freely. How can we state this more clearly? 3. Why do you feel we have no right for compesation from someone USING OUR CODE to make a lot of money? Do you feel that anyone has a right to use your work any way they wish without your permission? 4. I thought the principles of shareware were that the user could test the program before buying it. Authors could distribute it without the vast sums of money needed for the "normal" distribution chain. Not that once you post your program on a BBS and help other users and developers you lose all rights to your own work. #: 212367 S9/Hot Topic [S] 15-Sep-88 22:46:49 Sb: #212226-ARC Fm: Alan Rowberg 76703,4421 To: Andrew Foray [SEA] 72617,1167 (X) You do state your policy clearly. But a week ago you stated a very different policy just as clearly. Without saying so explicitly, you have backed down to a more reasonable position. And you wonder why we are confused? You still are silent about your 'legal Trademark.' The IQUEST search said it is applied for but not yet granted. True? And you are silent about PK's challenge to cite the transcript where he admitted under oath that he stole your code. Going to back down on that one also? And I sure would like to know why you sued PK again this month. Is it really for using the word 'ARCiving' without the h? #: 212390 S9/Hot Topic [S] 16-Sep-88 00:29:26 Sb: #212226-#ARC Fm: dave klein 76556,2203 To: Andrew Foray [SEA] 72617,1167 (X) Andy, I think a major part of the problems that have been engendered for SEA by this entire brouhaha are due to you and Thom paying too much attention to the lawyerly types and too little attention to your own common sense. The policy is a good example. The last part, dealing with manipulation of ARC format files, is exactly(!) the type of statement that I, and many other people wanted to see. It is pretty obvious that it was not a lawyer drafted piece, either. Unfortunately, to get to it, you have to go through the first few, lawyer type parts, and I don't think that you can get to it without tripping on those. If I have a program named WIDGET, one of whose claims to fame is that it can unpack programs from ARC format files, then assuming I haven't used your code I should be fine. But am I? I say it can read ARC format files. Does that use of the word ARC in that context get me into problems with the section on the name ARC? I'm not sure. Some further clarification is needed, I think. The policy is a good start, but it needs less legalese and more common sense. Ciao, Dave #: 212525 S9/Hot Topic [S] 16-Sep-88 16:26:31 Sb: #212390-#ARC Fm: Andrew Foray [SEA] 72617,1167 To: dave klein 76556,2203 (X) It is ok to use a trademark to refer to the thing it represents. If you refer to an ARC format file, and it realy is, then there is no problem. If you create a file that is not compatable with ARC, you should not call it an ARC format file. If you give the non compatable file an .ARC extension, you are just making trouble for any users who will get the file. #: 212559 S9/Hot Topic [S] 16-Sep-88 19:51:07 Sb: #212525-ARC Fm: rick segal 76276,2706 To: Andrew Foray [SEA] 72617,1167 Andy!! Answer the other questions RE: Katz, trademark!!!! OR at least tell these guys you DECLINE to answer them.. Silence aint golden!! Rick #: 212654 S9/Hot Topic [S] 17-Sep-88 00:50:26 Sb: #212525-ARC Fm: John Wilson 76414,624 To: Andrew Foray [SEA] 72617,1167 I can't agree that the .arc extention has a blasted thing to do with your program or anyone elses. It predates SEA-ARC by a number of years, for crying out loud! Earlier you said that the market has rejected non-compatable archiving methoeds (squashing I presume), yet it appears that most local bbs's support them and GEnie recently adopted it. A strange rejection, I must admit. This business with the file extention is just what a lot of us are complaining about here. jrw #: 212675 S9/Hot Topic [S] 17-Sep-88 06:12:10 Sb: #212525-ARC Fm: Don Gloistein 76010,474 To: Andrew Foray [SEA] 72617,1167 Andrew, But also according to your policy statement, Dave also owes you the source code because he USED the trademark. Or are you saying that he doesn't? --Don #: 212674 S9/Hot Topic [S] 17-Sep-88 06:12:04 Sb: #212226-ARC Fm: Don Gloistein 76010,474 To: Andrew Foray [SEA] 72617,1167 Andrew, The question was not one of using YOUR source code. It was of us having to send you OUR source code. A) If the outside author IS using your source code (licensed I presume), you already know what the routines are. The only addons would be the interface. You don't need source to see if it is professional. Just run the program. B) If the outside author IS NOT using your source code, but one they developed, you don't need their source because it writes arc's. Run the program and try to dearc it with the current SEA arc program. If it works, they kept it compatible. WHY do you need someone elses source code. The trademark law requires protecting your MARK from use. It has nothing to do with code. That is an expression and covered by copyright law. THAT you don't loose by not sueing someone. --Don #: 212235 S9/Hot Topic [S] 15-Sep-88 10:49:24 Sb: #POLICY.SEA Fm: John Love 73537,3145 To: Andrew Foray 72617,1167 (X) From POLICY.SEA in DL0 >> We hereby grant to the entire world and all sentient creatures in the universe who do not already have an agreement with us to the contrary a perpetutal, unlimited, galaxy wide license to read, extract, create, or otherwise manipulate ARC format archives. This does not include any license to use our sources or trademarks. Excuse me, Andrew, but the idea that SEA has the right to license a file format, no matter how liberal the terms, is ludicrous. I ***STRONGLY*** suggest that you rethink at least that portion of your policy statement. #: 212241 S9/Hot Topic [S] 15-Sep-88 11:13:07 Sb: #212235-#POLICY.SEA Fm: Andrew Foray [SEA] 72617,1167 To: John Love 73537,3145 (X) Some lawyers say we do, some don't. I don't know. If we don't, then that statement is a NOP and will not affect anyone. If we do, then that statement gives up those rights and should end the debate. Thats our point, stop fighting about our "claims" to the file format. We only claim rights to our own code and to our trademark. #: 212270 S9/Hot Topic [S] 15-Sep-88 14:13:38 Sb: #212241-#POLICY.SEA Fm: Bob Tolz 70475,1071 To: Andrew Foray [SEA] 72617,1167 (X) Andrew, Your statement does NOT give up rights. You've granted a license, which implies the right to do so. If you really want to give up rights (we agree that whether you have such rights is not agreed), then what you must do is DISCLAIM any rights. I'd like to see you do that. Bob #: 212283 S9/Hot Topic [S] 15-Sep-88 16:29:45 Sb: #212241-#POLICY.SEA Fm: Dave Hoagland 70007,3352 To: Andrew Foray [SEA] 72617,1167 (X) I was under the impression you were SEA's lawyer. Assuming that to be a correct impression, are you now saying that you, as their lawyer, do not know yourself if at least one of SEA's claims to "rights" is legal and valid? ...DaveH #: 212291 S9/Hot Topic [S] 15-Sep-88 17:13:33 Sb: #212283-#POLICY.SEA Fm: Andrew Foray [SEA] 72617,1167 To: Dave Hoagland 70007,3352 (X) Sorry about that, I am NOT SEAs lawyer. I am Thom's partner and co-onwer of SEA. SEA is basicly a 2 person company with a couple of employees, such as Thom's wife and my sister. (same person) #: 212314 S9/Hot Topic [S] 15-Sep-88 18:56:58 Sb: #212291-POLICY.SEA Fm: Dave Hoagland 70007,3352 To: Andrew Foray [SEA] 72617,1167 (X) Sorry...My mistake. But the question is, I feel, still valid. Are you, as a principal, unconvinced of the legality of your claims? ...DaveH #: 212308 S9/Hot Topic [S] 15-Sep-88 18:09:56 Sb: #212241-POLICY.SEA Fm: Paul Mayer (GRAB Plus) 70040,645 To: Andrew Foray [SEA] 72617,1167 (X) Andrew; Sea has filed for a TM on the word ARC. Now as we all know, the file extension was used by Computer Inovations with their C86 compiler that was used to write SEA's ARC correct? In light of what I have read here as well as elsewhere, I take it SEA's claim to the TM, only applies to the program name "ARC". If so, this would not cover the file extensions such as ????????.ARC, correct? Or have I missed something here and SEA is claiming any combination of the "ARC" in any form? Thanks - Paul #: 212441 S9/Hot Topic [S] 16-Sep-88 09:09:51 Sb: #212241-POLICY.SEA Fm: John Love 73537,3145 To: Andrew Foray [SEA] 72617,1167 (X) Please understand that I'm not flaming at SEA. I don't support SEA and I don't support PKWARE (I sure do support VB though - for obvious reasons). My point (and perhaps I'm being overly sensitive, but I don't think so) is that if SEA claims to have the ability to license, and thereby own the rights to, file formats, and that becomes accepted - the industry has a can of worms to deal with. Perhaps another entity, say Lotus, identifies the file format in which its product, say Lotus Rel. 3, stores its data- let's call it .WK2 files - as "owned" and thereby licenseable by them. But they don't license everybody to read and modifiy data within that format. Say they decide to charge a license fee. Where are we then? For the benefit of your own public relations as well as setting a precedent that is for the good of the industry, I would like to see you renounce the section of your policy statement that implies that you have any rights of ownership to file formats. #: 212655 S9/Hot Topic [S] 17-Sep-88 00:50:37 Sb: #212241-POLICY.SEA Fm: John Wilson 76414,624 To: Andrew Foray [SEA] 72617,1167 Andy, if claiming the file format isn't important then why waste ink (so to speak) on just that. Telling us not to worry about it is tatmount to asking us to accept the claim which I for one reject. #: 212246 S9/Hot Topic [S] 15-Sep-88 11:50:02 Sb: #212235-#POLICY.SEA Fm: Jim McKeown 74666,511 To: John Love 73537,3145 (X) I think you might be a bit sensitive, John. It is my impression that anyone granting a license is actually only renouncing their rights in the specified manner, not necessarily guaranteeing they actually have any rights in that area -- depending on the rest of the agreement of course. You're interpreting that section as a claim of such rights. Maybe I'm naive, but it seems to me that section is exactly the section SEA's detractors. It appears to unequivocally answer the basic question that has been asked around here: will SEA proceed against any program just because it manipulates ARC files? Again in my non-lawyer view, I'd think it would be very difficult for SEA to change that section once it has been published -- particularly given the word "perpetutal" in there (which I assume has the same force as if it were correctly spelled. jcm #: 212271 S9/Hot Topic [S] 15-Sep-88 14:13:44 Sb: #212246-#POLICY.SEA Fm: Bob Tolz 70475,1071 To: Jim McKeown 74666,511 (X) Jim, Whenever someone grants a license, they are always holding something in the nature of ownership in reserve. A lot of people balk at the idea that SEA has any such ownership in the first place, and that's what sticks in the craw. If SEA wants to make it crystal clear in a way which will satisfy me and many others, then they must DISCLAIM that they have such rights. Bob #: 212281 S9/Hot Topic [S] 15-Sep-88 16:29:29 Sb: #212271-#POLICY.SEA Fm: Jim McKeown 74666,511 To: Bob Tolz 70475,1071 (X) I would state it a different way, Bob. I would say that granting a license is specific in what is granted, but I don't see that it necessarily holds ownership of anything back. In particular when I read the "license," I fail to see what is held back in terms of manipulating archives (which is what I interpret to be the concern of people here). You can be as hard to satisfy as you want. I'm generally satisfied when someone steps out of the way and says do as you wish in the area which was specifically questioned. Given that the license is perpetual, it's hard for them to back out. jcm #: 212334 S9/Hot Topic [S] 15-Sep-88 20:34:44 Sb: #212281-#POLICY.SEA Fm: Bob Tolz 70475,1071 To: Jim McKeown 74666,511 (X) And I hereby grant a perpetual license to the entire world to use the Brooklyn Bridge whenever I please. What I tend to view as arrogant is the position they are taking that they have the ownership rights in the first place. #: 212442 S9/Hot Topic [S] 16-Sep-88 09:09:58 Sb: #212246-#POLICY.SEA Fm: John Love 73537,3145 To: Jim McKeown 74666,511 (X) I agree that the policy statement by SEA answers the immediate and pressing question - will SEA proceed against any program just because it manipulates ARC files. My concern involves a wider scope - that of the implied right to license the use of a specific file format. I don't agree with you that licensing is renouncing a right. It is, I believe, just the opposite. It is an expression of ownership of a right and granting permission to another to exercise some part or all of that right. You may want to look at my response to Andrew Foray in this thread for the very real direction that acceptance of the concept that a file format is something that can be owned leads us. #: 212656 S9/Hot Topic [S] 17-Sep-88 00:50:51 Sb: #212246-#POLICY.SEA Fm: John Wilson 76414,624 To: Jim McKeown 74666,511 (X) Please note: issuing a liscense, no matter how generous, implies ownership. Hence the need for the liscense. If SEA has no such claim, why bother to issue a liscense? ttfn. jrw #: 212415 S9/Hot Topic [S] 16-Sep-88 06:54:40 Sb: SEA License Fm: denny muscatelli 76077,2146 To: Andrew Foray [SEA] 72617,1167 (X) Interesting that you grant license to use that which you don't own yet. I hereby grant you license to use FUZZY.EXE a program I will be writing later this year. Oh, did I forget to mention the $1 one-time fee ... ? :-o Denny.