SEA vs. Phil Katz (PKARC) Message Thread -------------------------------------------------- Downloaded from Compu$erve's IBMSW Sig (18-SEP-88) #: 211738 S9/Hot Topic [S] 13-Sep-88 16:16:36 Sb: #PK settlement details Fm: Bob Tolz 70475,1071 To: SysOp Don Watkins 76703,750 (X) Don, If the most recent disclosure by that tired typist who copied SEA's papers from its most recent contempt motion is accurate, then SEA is trying to protect "ARC" as more than a trademark for its program, but also as a suffixed or prefixed word, among other things. For instance, they complained about the fact that in version 3.61, Phil's documentation included reference to "arc-ing" or "de-arc-ing" a file. This, they said, was a contempt of the previously entered-into consent order. That goes a little too far, in my opinion. There are 4 Replies. #: 211749 S9/Hot Topic [S] 13-Sep-88 16:56:55 Sb: #211738-#PK settlement details Fm: SysOp Don Watkins 76703,750 To: Bob Tolz 70475,1071 (X) Bob - I'd certainly agree that such a restriction would go way too far. I find this very alarming and can only wonder where it would lead. There is 1 Reply. #: 212237 S9/Hot Topic [S] 15-Sep-88 11:02:22 Sb: #211749-#PK settlement details Fm: Russ Ranshaw 70000,1010 To: SysOp Don Watkins 76703,750 (X) Hmmm.... No more arc welding. No more movie projectors or searchlights using carbon arcs. The National ARChives would be closed. Archery would be a thing of the past. The arch in architecture (in fact, architecture itself) would vanish. No more writing about "the parched earth" during droughts. Armies wouldn't be permitted to march. The calander would have to be changed to remove March. All larch trees would have to be destroyed. Starched shirts would vanish. Scientific text books which teach Archemedie's Principle would have to be rewritten. The list goes on and on...gad, we're in deep trouble! There is 1 Reply. #: 212272 S9/Hot Topic [S] 15-Sep-88 14:13:50 Sb: #212237-#PK settlement details Fm: Bob Tolz 70475,1071 To: Russ Ranshaw 70000,1010 (X) Russ, If SEA gets a trademark granted on ARC, it would be for very limited purposes. You'd still be able to be an arc welder if you want to. Bob There are 2 Replies. #: 212278 S9/Hot Topic [S] 15-Sep-88 15:46:06 Sb: #212272-PK settlement details Fm: Russ Ranshaw 70000,1010 To: Bob Tolz 70475,1071 (X) Bob, I don't want to _be_ an arc welder. Too many sparks; there are enough flames around here to suit me! Er, uh, gosh, gee, well, hmm. I was spoofin', of course. -Russ #: 212341 S9/Hot Topic [S] 15-Sep-88 20:37:25 Sb: #212272-#PK settlement details Fm: Barry Simon 76004,1664 To: Bob Tolz 70475,1071 (X) Er, I thought the whole point of the SEA suit was that they thought that Phil was an ARC welder. - Barry ;-) There is 1 Reply. #: 212453 S9/Hot Topic [S] 16-Sep-88 10:05:34 Sb: #212341-#PK settlement details Fm: John Love 73537,3145 To: Barry Simon 76004,1664 (X) Quick, Barry. Claim SIMON and maybe you'll own SIMONize also. There is 1 Reply. #: 212500 S9/Hot Topic [S] 16-Sep-88 14:08:44 Sb: #212453-#PK settlement details Fm: Barry Simon 76004,1664 To: John Love 73537,3145 On the TAPCIS forum, my "name" is Barry Simon (tm) so I've already done that . BTW, for only $1, I'll sell you a perpetual license to use my trademarked name in the To: segment of a message header so long as you promise to send me all your source code. ;-) - Barry There is 1 Reply. #: 212557 S9/Hot Topic [S] 16-Sep-88 19:50:56 Sb: #212500-PK settlement details Fm: rick segal 76276,2706 To: Barry Simon 76004,1664 (X) Hey Barry!! I sent ya the Buck!! wheres the toll free line, update response card, 200 page typeset manual, and the keys to the condo in Fl? Sheessh, and I thought a buck still would get ya somthin... :) Rick (patent pending!!) #: 212305 S9/Hot Topic [S] 15-Sep-88 18:05:19 Sb: #211738-PK settlement details Fm: Steve Manes (agpie) 76237,657 To: Bob Tolz 70475,1071 (X) Thom Henderson released SEA's Statement of Policy on my BBS concerning its position on the ARC trademark and copyright. I uploaded the full text to UNIXFORUM here, if anyone's interested. Here's a couple of excerpts: ARC TRADEMARK Use of the ARC trademark may be licensed sbject to the following terms: 1) Any use of the ARC trademark means that the product is SHAREWARE. We need a fully functioning copy of the latest version with documentation to make available on our BBS for general download. 2) Your product must be compatible with the current version of ARC from SEA, and must be of an acceptable level of quality and workmanship. 3) We must have your name and address so that we can keep you informed of any changes to ARC. 4) As the legal owner of the ARC trademark, we are bound by US trademark laws to protect and maintain the integrity of ARC in any program that uses the ARC trademark. To comply with this, we must ask for fully commented source. We will keep your source code completely confidential if you so desire, and we will not make use of any of your source code in any of our products without your expressed, written permission. (con't.) #: 212306 S9/Hot Topic [S] 15-Sep-88 18:05:26 Sb: #211738-#PK settlement details Fm: Steve Manes (agpie) 76237,657 To: Bob Tolz 70475,1071 (X) (SEA's Statement of Policy, 9/13/88, con't...) ARC FILE FORMAT 1) 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 perpetual, 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. 2) If you make any changes to the format such that your file is not compatible with the current version of ARC, then the result may not be referred to as an ARC format Archive. There is 1 Reply. #: 212336 S9/Hot Topic [S] 15-Sep-88 20:34:51 Sb: #212306-#PK settlement details Fm: Bob Tolz 70475,1071 To: Steve Manes (agpie) 76237,657 (X) Steve, The file's also available here. I object to their position that they have the right to license what a lot of people don't believe they own in the first place. Bob There are 2 Replies. #: 212371 S9/Hot Topic [S] 15-Sep-88 22:58:15 Sb: #212336-#PK settlement details Fm: Steve Manes (agpie) 76237,657 To: Bob Tolz 70475,1071 (X) Shades of '69 -- a lot of people don't believe that anyONE owns anyTHING so that doesn't surprise me. The only place to test that is the court, you know. It's not so unusual for contracts (licenses) to contain varying amounts of unenforceable verbiage. I think we're all used to seeing that. If you're a renter who's signed a standard-form lease, there are probably a few considerable discrepancies between it and the local housing or civil law. (Everyone who has a lease that says that your landlord can sue you but you can't sue him for any reason whatsover, raise your hand). I applaud SEA for taking a stand on protecting what is (or was) a grassroots standard, not necessarily at the expense of PKARC or because I want SEA to get rich from it. PKARC's squashing hosed the Unix/DOS community, which had earlier enjoyed some compatibility with each other (though a squashing ARC is now finally available for Unix). As users, none of us profit by "standards" that can get arbitrarily nuked whenever another software developer thinks s/he has a better way. What I would rather see is more mutual respect and cooperation between developers to avoid the kind of encounter that produced SEA v. PKWARE. There are 2 Replies. #: 212437 S9/Hot Topic [S] 16-Sep-88 08:54:17 Sb: #212371-#PK settlement details Fm: Bob Tolz 70475,1071 To: Steve Manes (agpie) 76237,657 (X) I'm the last person who will argue against property rights. As a lawyer, I defend those rights all the time. And as a lawyer, a BBS operator, a shareware author AND a user, I don't believe that SEA has the rights to which they lay claim. As for standards, sure it's more convenient for consumers to have simple standards, and when a significant player in the field takes a tack different from an existing standard, it causes confusion and inconvenience. But blind adherence to existing standards stifles innovation. If the Pascal language had been limited to the Wirth standard, nobody would have been using it for real programming; would you have Borland adhere to that standard in order to avoid confusion, thus preventing them from coming out with a succession of ever more useful Pascal compilers? Would you have told the VCR manufacturers that Sony already has a perfectly useful video recording technology in Beta? Would you have told IBM to leave well enough alone and not come out with this Personal System stuff? In all but one of my previous examples of companies bucking a standard, consumers have "voted" to flock to the non-standard implementation (the jury's still out, as you know, on OS/2). And, of curse, there are numerous examples of non-standard implementations that fell by the wayside. In my opinion, the squashing technique added by Katz was one of those non-standard implementations that improved on the standard. Indeed, SEA's ARC itself was a non-standard implementation when compared to the originally existing standards of SQ and LBR. My point is: I'm all in favor of a software developer nuking a standard when s/he has a better way! There are 2 Replies. #: 212558 S9/Hot Topic [S] 16-Sep-88 19:51:01 Sb: #212437-#PK settlement details Fm: rick segal 76276,2706 To: Bob Tolz 70475,1071 Stand by... Tom and his cronies will probably hose the Sh** outta ya! Rick There is 1 Reply. #: 212601 S9/Hot Topic [S] 16-Sep-88 23:04:20 Sb: #212558-PK settlement details Fm: Tom Neff 76556,2536 To: rick segal 76276,2706 (X) What the heck is that supposed to mean? Is this amateur hour or something? Jeez... #: 212602 S9/Hot Topic [S] 16-Sep-88 23:05:38 Sb: #212437-#PK settlement details Fm: Steve Manes (Magpie) 76237,657 To: Bob Tolz 70475,1071 I appreciate the intent behind you arguments but your analogies are flawed. Comparing an archive format standard to standards in compiler design is off the mark for a profound reason: the end-user has no reason to care what flavor of Pascal or even what language was used to compile a program. A Unix user with an .arc file that won't dearchive itself because PKXARC doesn't exist on Unix most certainly does have a reason to care. As for your VCR analogy, if a tape says "Beta" it's guaranteed to record and play on ANY Beta-format recorder. In any event, the challengers to Beta released their own format, VHS... clearly labeled, clearly different, very little user confusion. No one seems to have an answer for this question but I'll ask it again anyway: who was holding Phil Katz' arm behind his back, forcing him to continue using .ARC to represent his ARC-incompatible squashed files? There was no technical reason for doing so and it clearly caused a lot of people grief, including as I understand it SEA, which was buried in complaints from its registered users about these new ARC files that ARC couldn't deal with. Do you think that was fair? I sure don't. I think if PKWARE wanted to own the high ground for advancing the state-of-the-art with a modified ARC standard, it became Phil's responsibility to either release portable source code for his archiver, OR release plug-compatible source for his squasher to be inserted into SEA's released C source AND share the technology with SEA, which after all created the standard that put PKWARE on the map in the first place. Otherwise, it was a business decision and I don't respect grassroots standards being tampered with to gain commercial advantage. There is 1 Reply. #: 212802 S9/Hot Topic [S] 17-Sep-88 20:02:33 Sb: #212602-#PK settlement details Fm: Glenn Hart 76703,4226 To: Steve Manes (Magpie) 76237,657 (X) Unfortunately, you're simply wrong about videocassette "guaranteed" compatibility, and I think your references to Beta and VHS make exactly the opposite point. There is no longer such compatibility, ever since Sony introduced SuperBeta and, now, ED (Extended Definition) Beta. Similarly, Super-VHS tapes will not play on non-Super VHS decks. The incompatibility was seen as a viable tradeoff for improved performance -- just like PK-style squashing. Glenn There is 1 Reply. #: 212842 S9/Hot Topic [S] 18-Sep-88 00:52:24 Sb: #212802-PK settlement details Fm: Steve Manes (Magpie) 76237,657 To: Glenn Hart 76703,4226 Sigh... you shot down your own argument, Glenn. Those standards are clearly labeled for the consumer on the product, just as a ".ZOO" file is labeled differently than an ".ARC. file, just as an ".EXE" file is presumably (by standard) not an archive file. If Super-Beta cassettes mislabled themselves as standard Beta or, worse, as VHS or gave no indication of what format they were, you would have a point. But manufacturers are more responsible than to do that, thankfully. Or maybe you've discovered a technique I haven't found yet. Can you tell by looking at an .ARC file whether or not it will be uncompressable by SEA's ARC? (P.S. "Sure, just use PKARC!" isn't an answer. Only DOS folk have PKARC.) #: 212650 S9/Hot Topic [S] 17-Sep-88 00:48:52 Sb: #212371-#PK settlement details Fm: John Wilson 76414,624 To: Steve Manes (agpie) 76237,657 (X) Standards that get arbitrarily nuked? Enough people thought it was a better way to use it, squashing that it. And PK was/is fully downward compatible. By slavishly adhering to a standard and avoiding extentions to it or improvements we all rot, not a good thing for users either. Shades of '69??? My goodness, a bunch of hippies are out there threatening civilization as we know it! Of course, there remains some debate about who owns what in this debate. I've seen messages that claim that disassembling SEA will reveal a whole mess of public domain code, and there is SEA's claim that PK ripped them off. Sadly you're right, the courts are the only place to settle this, if one or more parties are going to be stubborn. Of course, provided the lithgants can afford it, the court route can go on for years, by which time what the fight was over is obsolete. (Imagine, if you can, Visi Corp sueing Lotus a few years back over look and feel infrigements of 1-2-3. By the time the thing would get settled, still a few years in the future, it would hardly matter. VisiCalc is gone and Lotus *may* be losing its dominance. Of course, back then, we'd have all been cheering mightily for little Lotus against Big VisiOn. My self included.) Mutual respect and co-operation would be wonderful, wouldn't it? Do you think it will happen? (I'm not trying to be sarcastic with this question, rather wondering what the chances are in the current sue-me/sue-you atmosphere.) Thanks for your upload, btw. jrw There is 1 Reply. #: 212666 S9/Hot Topic [S] 17-Sep-88 03:58:59 Sb: #212650-#PK settlement details Fm: Steve Manes (Magpie) 76237,657 To: John Wilson 76414,624 PKARC, by default, created ARC-incompatible files. That was enough to hose the Unix/VMS community and any other non-DOS user who relied on ARC for for transportable archives. PKARC was very inconvenient for Unix BBS operators especially. PKWARE could have remedied this by releasing its source, as did SEA. I don't deny that PKARC was a great improvement for DOS users but DOS users, in general, tend to be rather myopic about the rest of the computer world. On the contrary, there's a great deal of cooperation between Shareware and PD authors and respect for each others' standards. We take a lot of it for granted, which is what a standard intends for users to do. If you've got a decent terminal program like Procomm there, hit PgDn and look at that list of public domain protocols available to you. Then think again about this ARC business. When Forsberg improved the throughput on Christiansen's Xmodem, did he call it Xmodem or create his own protocol? Like PKARC, Ymodem can read standard Xmodem blocks too. It just doesn't write them by default. By your argument, he should have called his new protocol "Xmodem". Look at those other Xmodem derivants like WXMODEM and even SEA's own SEAlink. Would you have preferred that all these authors had also laid (temporary) claim to the "Xmodem" protocol because they improved on it? Would you really have preferred to see only one protocol option in PgDn... (X)modem... and wonder who the hell's Xmodem it was and what flavor-of-the-month "Xmodem" the remote supported? As I said, we wouldn't need litigation if authors were more respectful of each others' domains and took a broader view of the impact of their work on the general market. There are 2 Replies. #: 212713 S9/Hot Topic [S] 17-Sep-88 12:05:04 Sb: #212666-#PK settlement details Fm: Tom Neff 76556,2536 To: Steve Manes (Magpie) 76237,657 (X) It's worth mentioning that the "great improvement" PKARC brought to DOS ARC users (leaving the pre-existing Vernware aside for a moment, since some folks obviously never knew about it) was the ASM-induced speed, which was already there *before* squashing. When squashing arrived it brought *very* little to the party in terms of additional compression. (In technical terms the difference was 14-bit LZW versus crunching's original 12-bit.) Most text files realized a few additional percent, in exchange for a blizzard of incompatibility problems. Truly the devil's bargain. There is 1 Reply. #: 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. There are 3 Replies. #: 212877 S9/Hot Topic [S] 18-Sep-88 09:17:28 Sb: #212843-PK settlement details Fm: Barry Simon 76004,1664 To: Steve Manes (Magpie) 76237,657 This is the first I've heard about DWC at all. Could you tell us more? - Barry #: 212901 S9/Hot Topic [S] 18-Sep-88 11:54:39 Sb: #212843-PK settlement details Fm: Tom Neff 76556,2536 To: Steve Manes (Magpie) 76237,657 Thanks for the info Steve, and I'm sure you'll get a lot of response on that archived conference! How did PKARC finally stack up to ARCE/A/etc? #: 212902 S9/Hot Topic [S] 18-Sep-88 12:06:07 Sb: #212843-PK settlement details Fm: Mike Nice 73565,565 To: Steve Manes (Magpie) 76237,657 I had a chance to examine DWC recently. Some of the features I particularly like are the /q to prompt whether to overwrite, and the /s to expand into subdirectories. Although I like its added features, I believe the reason it hasn't caught on more widely is because like Zoo, its file format is not compatible with ARC. Although it is fast, a benchmark on my computer between DWC-a495 and PK361 showed that PK was faster (28.5 sec VS 19.8 sec on 81 text files totaling 1.1 Meg). If it becomes necessary to form a new archiving standard, DWC deserves serious consideration. It appears to be a true public domain program. The source code is available upon request and because it is truly public domain, not shareware there is no mandetory shareware registration fee. #: 212812 S9/Hot Topic [S] 17-Sep-88 21:12:21 Sb: #212666-#PK settlement details Fm: Charles Hart 72755,500 To: Steve Manes (Magpie) 76237,657 (X) True, DOS users in general are rather myopic about the rest of the computer world - but what reason is there for them to be otherwise? Since DOS users outnumber all the other users combined umpteen times over, they apparently feel (when the subject comes up, as it does irregularly) that the others should take whatever steps they esire if they wish to use DOS stuff. I have yet to find *any* DOS user interested in using anything from (say) Unix that was not already ported to DOS - the rest of the stuff seems not to be of much attraction. Myself, I am not sure that this is bad. We *do* outnumber all the other users. If someone on a non-conforming platform would like to use some if the advanced stuff developed over on this platform they have the obligation to make the appropriate adjustment - just as we do whenever we want to use one of those strange one_line_forever text files from Unix. I don't complain in public, I just fix the file. There is 1 Reply. #: 212844 S9/Hot Topic [S] 18-Sep-88 00:52:46 Sb: #212812-PK settlement details Fm: Steve Manes (Magpie) 76237,657 To: Charles Hart 72755,500 I'd be interested in seeing the reference source for the claim that DOS users outnumber all other users of all computers umpteen times over. As for DOS users not being interested in stuff from Unix, mmmmm.... how about DOS itself? What do you think inspired DOS's pipes and redirection and subdirectories? What about the hundreds of PD, Shareware and commercial Unix utilities that have been ported to DOS? MKS is doing land-office business selling its Unix tools and Korn shell for DOS users. Unix text files aren't "one-line-forever". By standard, they just use a line feed character alone to delimit text lines. In any event, it's an irrelevant argument. The discussion is about an ARC standard, not which computer one needs to own to have the right to change it. Unix has its own family of archivers, you know, which in some respects are more efficient than what's available for DOS. But while Unix can read DOS filenames, DOS croaks on Unix filenames like ".profile" and "MyStuff.tar.Z". Henderson intended for his archive format to be widely supported among various operating systems, which is why he released his source. If Phil Katz wanted to change the standard I think it was his reponsibility also not to strand the probably tens of thousands of non-DOS ARC users. #: 212673 S9/Hot Topic [S] 17-Sep-88 06:11:54 Sb: #212336-PK settlement details Fm: Don Gloistein 76010,474 To: Bob Tolz 70475,1071 Bob, Maybe you can enlighten me. If they state that they never claimed copyright on LWZ (good for them). And they have posted a policy giving the rights to read, manipulate, create the format. What is there to license? --Don #: 212649 S9/Hot Topic [S] 17-Sep-88 00:48:06 Sb: #211738-#PK settlement details Fm: John Wilson 76414,624 To: Bob Tolz 70475,1071 Does this mean that I will have to stop referring to a process whereby I retrive a compressed file as de-arcing? What is going on here??? There is 1 Reply. #: 212712 S9/Hot Topic [S] 17-Sep-88 12:00:48 Sb: #212649-PK settlement details Fm: Tom Neff 76556,2536 To: John Wilson 76414,624 > Does this mean that I will have to stop referring to a process whereby > I retrieve a compressed file as de-arcing? Surely that's the wrong term in general anyway. If you're talking about extracting a member of an ARC archive (where the storage algorithm happened to be squeezing, crunching or squashing), then the proper word is probably *extracting* anyway. If you're talking about reversing the effects of the popular Unix 'compress' program (i.e., the one that takes 'myfile' and creates 'myfile.Z' out of it), then the term is decompressing. People do something talk about 'de-arcing' in the sense of extracting all members of an archive onto their disk. The equivalent term for formats other than ARC would be 'extracting' or 'installing' I suppose. #: 211155 S9/Hot Topic [S] 11-Sep-88 10:02:22 Sb: #SEA/PK/ARC* Fm: Earle Robinson 76004,1762 To: all Without taking sides I'd like to setout a few of my own observations. 1. SEAware has apparently been content to update its program quite rarely. This may be in part due to the problems encountered with a trojan hack operated on one of the versions posted. At that time they said they would not release a new version for some time to avoid such incidents. On the other hand, the image is of a company, and thus of some large impersonal organization, which has been lazy, lethargic, smug and complacent, as well as being greedy. 2. SEAware erred in not moving to a better C compiler in order to speed up the execution times. Since license fees had been collected, no plea of poverty can be advanced. 3. PKware curried favor with the bbs operators and thus became the unsung hero to them, and to their users. 4. PKware erred in keeping the details of the squashing algorithm secret, releasing them only when reverse engineering made this quite useless. However, SEAware releasd source for its code when the product was introduced. 5. PKware released a potentially dangerous version, 3.6, without warning their users of the inherent problems due to their playing with self-modifying code. The excuse of foiling hackers is of no solace to those whose systems were crashed. 6. SEAware has taken a first step in establishing a relationship with users here on compuserve through the presence of one of its principals. It is to be noted that PKware has not made the same gesture or effort. 7. SEAware has said, unequivocally, that PKware was guilty of pirating code, and that this was admitted by PKware. Given this statement, and the seriousness of it, and that no action has been made, or threatened for libel by PKware, one must conclude that this assertion is accepted. -er There are 2 Replies. #: 211238 S9/Hot Topic [S] 11-Sep-88 16:28:56 Sb: #211155-#SEA/PK/ARC* Fm: Robert Blacher 72677,3305 To: Earle Robinson 76004,1762 (X) Oh, good grief, Earl! Your point (7) is waaay out of line. The fact that SEA representatives have accused Katz of stealing code proves nothing. The fact that Katz hasn't retaliated with a libel suit also proves nothing. Some people have better things to do with their time and money then to give them both to lawyers (and, I say that as a lawyer). And, as a sysop, I'll tell you I know of no effort by Katz to curry favor with us as you say in point (2). Quite to the contrary, Katz's childish strings in early versions of his programs (eat my dust ....) and reluctance to release info on squashing alienated quite a few of us. If we use his program, it's in *spite* of some of what he's done. Finally, CompuServe is but one of many communications services. Katz has chosen to be active on others (I won't discuss the wisdom of his choices -they're *his* choices) rather than here. He also runs his own BBS. Maybe SEA's folks should call there? There is 1 Reply. #: 211425 S9/Hot Topic [S] 12-Sep-88 08:30:14 Sb: #211238-#SEA/PK/ARC* Fm: Earle Robinson 76004,1762 To: Robert Blacher 72677,3305 (X) As I said, I am not taking sides in this dispute, only making observations. I understand that SEA has said, quite unequivocally, that PK stole code, based on an expert's opinion. This isn't an accusation, and if it were wrong, I should think that PK would have already seeked some redress. Instead, PK is subject to a follow-up suit, whose details I ignore. As for currying favor, again this is an observation based on my own limited experience on a few of the major bbs. It is clear that katz has not appeared here, though he must know that he is welcome & that one of the SEA principals is here. Further, since the tide of opinion was rather pro katz, it can't be for fear of being unwelcome. -er There is 1 Reply. #: 211445 S9/Hot Topic [S] 12-Sep-88 10:57:57 Sb: #211425-#SEA/PK/ARC* Fm: Alan Rowberg 76703,4421 To: Earle Robinson 76004,1762 (X) Does Phil know all this? Despite all our just pride in IBMSW, I bet we represent something less than 1% of the world computing community. Are we really worth his time? He is probably up to his ears in lawyers and his new product. I sure would think twice about spending a lot of time here in his circumstances. When being sued, it is usually best to not talk to anyone but your lawyer. There is 1 Reply. #: 211480 S9/Hot Topic [S] 12-Sep-88 13:55:05 Sb: #211445-#SEA/PK/ARC* Fm: Earle Robinson 76004,1762 To: Alan Rowberg 76703,4421 (X) There are reportedly 15 million pc systems in the states. So, if your figure of 1% is correct, that represents 150,000. Note that many of that number are important decision makers, bbs sysops, software authors, etc. So, their influence is larger than their numbers. I'd guess that a fair number of them have used or are using arc, pkarc or arc*. After all, pc magazine, apparently the largest magazine in the industry only claims 700,000 readers, <5% of pc users. If katz doesn't know about cis, a substantial source for his revenue, then..... -er There is 1 Reply. #: 211577 S9/Hot Topic [S] 12-Sep-88 21:56:45 Sb: #211480-SEA/PK/ARC* Fm: Alan Rowberg 76703,4421 To: Earle Robinson 76004,1762 (X) I think CIS only claims about 300,000 subscribers. Suppose 10% log onto IBMSW once a month. That's 30,000. Now extend their sphere of influence and we get up to the 1% of Phil's total domestic market. Now add the international folks, and we look even smaller. Phil surely knows about CIS, but may not know there is a debate raging. Sure, I would love to see Phil here, but am not sure he is unwise when he is not. #: 211292 S9/Hot Topic [S] 11-Sep-88 18:23:41 Sb: #211155-#SEA/PK/ARC* Fm: Barry Simon 76004,1664 To: Earle Robinson 76004,1762 (X) Earle - Sorry; I can't take PK's silence on the issue of the accusation by Mr. Foray as acceptance. I believe that many who pass through here missed the statement so that Katz who has hardly ever, if ever been on SW may not even know. And like responding to "When did you stop beating your wife", there are times when silence is the best response to accusations even if there is no truth to 'em. The fact remains that Mr. Foray has made a serious accusation which we must consider could be true, but it seems to me that we must consider that it could be false. Conclusion = confusion! - Barry There is 1 Reply. #: 211426 S9/Hot Topic [S] 12-Sep-88 08:30:25 Sb: #211292-#SEA/PK/ARC* Fm: Earle Robinson 76004,1762 To: Barry Simon 76004,1664 (X) If someone flatly said that you had copied source, and that this was the basis for a settlement of a suit against you, and this wasn't true, I'm sure that you would either appear personally, and/or retain legal assistance to obtain redress. I can say with certainty, if I were in that position, I should immediately ripost with a statement, and look for a lawyer. -er There are 3 Replies. #: 211595 S9/Hot Topic [S] 12-Sep-88 23:09:39 Sb: #211426-#SEA/PK/ARC* Fm: Roger Schlafly 76067,511 To: Earle Robinson 76004,1762 (X) Earle, please read message #211506. Katz has flatly denied most of what Foray says. At least one of them is a big liar. Please don't assume somewhat is guilty just because they don't file lawsuits. Roger There is 1 Reply. #: 211637 S9/Hot Topic [S] 13-Sep-88 05:54:30 Sb: #211595-#SEA/PK/ARC* Fm: Earle Robinson 76004,1762 To: Roger Schlafly 76067,511 (X) I've seen the quote from his message. It looks like there is another lawsuit coming, if he is correct in his assertion. Mind you, I repeat that I am not taking sides. I merely wished to make some observations. When the lawsuit was originally announced, my sympathies were more for PK. Then, realizing that both companies are quite small (the comparison between 4 employees at SEA and 2 or 3 at PK which katz makes is essentially meaningless) and that this wasn't just a case of a monster company weighing in against a tiny one, I started to watch the debate. At present, I'm completely neutral. -er There are 2 Replies. #: 211725 S9/Hot Topic [S] 13-Sep-88 15:08:48 Sb: #211637-#SEA/PK/ARC* Fm: JOHN BOYD 75076,2466 To: Earle Robinson 76004,1762 (X) Earle, the comparison that he makes ref 4 employees vs 2 or 3 is that Foray said in his message that PK was a 'larger' company. Phil just said that he wasn't larger There is 1 Reply. #: 212648 S9/Hot Topic [S] 17-Sep-88 00:47:52 Sb: #211725-SEA/PK/ARC* Fm: John Wilson 76414,624 To: JOHN BOYD 75076,2466 Hardly Lotus going after Paperback Software, you must admit. The silliness and sadness of the whole thing is that the shareware market and software market in general has reached such a point of maturity that this sort of thing, attempting to copyright, patent and trademark everything imaginable, appears profitable to the litigators. The flip side, of course, is that some or all of the cloner feel that there is no need to improve on a product, merely copy it and sell it at a lesser price (or greater price *IF* PK really did copy a great slug of SEA's code). The fact that this discussion is going on with such vigour seems to mark the passing of an era in personal computing where co-operation was more important than competiton or an irrational attempt to protect a market postion which is being eroded by a superior product that may have a passing similarity. I'm not commenting on the SEA/PK dispute here, rather the whole tone of the last few years, Lotus suing Paperback and Mosaic, Apple suing (it seems) everyone in sight, protectionist moves in the US which appear to have driven RAM prices up and so on. For an era that seems to believe in unfettered free enterprise, there are a lot of fetters around. #: 211927 S9/Hot Topic [S] 14-Sep-88 09:23:53 Sb: #211637-#SEA/PK/ARC* Fm: Alan Rowberg 76703,4421 To: Earle Robinson 76004,1762 (X) Does the size of the company make a difference? Is the smaller company always right or somehow more worthy? There is 1 Reply. #: 211946 S9/Hot Topic [S] 14-Sep-88 10:41:41 Sb: #211927-SEA/PK/ARC* Fm: Earle Robinson 76004,1762 To: Alan Rowberg 76703,4421 (X) Of course not! Many people were laboring under the misapprehension that SEA is some of goliath and that PK was the 'little' guy, being oppressed. In fact, both companies are small ones. When a large corporation attacks a small one, there is often, if not usually, more sympathy for the 'little' guy, and when the little company or individual sues the big company, the jury is usually predisposed to make the big company pay. That is the 'deep pocket' theory which has so successfully made many lawyers rich, and raised our insurance premiums to such levels. Returning to the subject. Contrary to what many people think, or thought, SEA is not an IBM, but another small company. Whether they are right or not makes little difference to many who are quite willing to express their own prejudices. -er #: 211876 S9/Hot Topic [S] 14-Sep-88 01:49:37 Sb: #211426-#SEA/PK/ARC* Fm: Barry Simon 76004,1664 To: Earle Robinson 76004,1762 (X) Since Phil has replied, I think your point is moot but if I'd just dropped out of a law suit because of costs, I'd certainly not try a new law suit. And I'm not sure that in the circumstances, one can't argue that silence is the best policy. - Barry There is 1 Reply. #: 211945 S9/Hot Topic [S] 14-Sep-88 10:41:23 Sb: #211876-#SEA/PK/ARC* Fm: Earle Robinson 76004,1762 To: Barry Simon 76004,1664 (X) We don't know that PK "dropped out" because of costs. According to SEA, the expert witnesses' assertion that there was piracy of source code, and this may be the reason. After all, both companies are small, neither have 'deep pockets'. -er There is 1 Reply. #: 212510 S9/Hot Topic [S] 16-Sep-88 15:40:03 Sb: #211945-#SEA/PK/ARC* Fm: Jay T. Blocksom 76657,3375 To: Earle Robinson 76004,1762 (X) Earle -- I haven't seen this point addressed, so I'm guessing here, but let us not forget that counsel for the plaintiff in civil cases is often working on a contingency basis. Assuming that this were the case with SEA in the original suit, they indeed would fit the "Goliath" stereotype to a certain degree -- regardless of the "size" of the company. After all, it would be a "what do we have to lose?"-type of proposition from SEA's point of view; while the defendant (PK, in this case) would have to pay his legal costs as he went, win or lose. -- J.T.B. There is 1 Reply. #: 212604 S9/Hot Topic [S] 16-Sep-88 23:05:53 Sb: #212510-SEA/PK/ARC* Fm: Steve Manes (Magpie) 76237,657 To: Jay T. Blocksom 76657,3375 (X) I don't think SEA's lawyer was working on contingency. Henderson told me that his lawyer cost him more than he (Thom) makes in a year. Frankly, I don't think either of these companies wanted to go to court on this. It probably would have been mutually-assured destruction. (ye, verily, and de lawyers shall inherit de oith). #: 212647 S9/Hot Topic [S] 17-Sep-88 00:47:15 Sb: #211426-#SEA/PK/ARC* Fm: John Wilson 76414,624 To: Earle Robinson 76004,1762 (X) (An aside). re: looking for a lawyer to respond to untrue charges, a thought breezed through my skull, as one occasionally will, a quote: "He who steals my purse steals trash, he who steals my reputation steals..." at which point my brain hit its equivalent of a damaged sector. Do you (or anyone else) know the rest of this? back to main topic later. jrw There are 2 Replies. #: 212748 S9/Hot Topic [S] 17-Sep-88 15:54:10 Sb: #212647-SEA/PK/ARC* Fm: Graeme W. McRae 73307,2453 To: John Wilson 76414,624 Cash. #: 212789 S9/Hot Topic [S] 17-Sep-88 19:18:45 Sb: #212647-SEA/PK/ARC* Fm: Nelson Ford 71355,470 To: John Wilson 76414,624 Good name in man and woman, dear my lord, Is the immediate jewel of their souls: Who steals my purse steals trash; 'tis something, nothing; 'Twas mine, 'tis his, and has been slave to thousands; But he that filches from me my good name Robs me of that which not enriches him, And makes me poor indeed. Othello, Act III, Scene 3 #: 211401 S9/Hot Topic [S] 12-Sep-88 04:30:40 Sb: #PK* Was Never Necessary! Fm: DaveK 76556,2203 To: Robert Blacher 72677,3305 (X) That would be most interesting, and at variance with past behaviour. This entire brouhaha (which, in the overall scheme of things, is truly a tempest in a teapot) was started, I believe, when PKWare started advertising their product in the back pages of the magazines in close proximity to the ads for ARC by SEA...advertised as a commercial product, in competition with ARC. What people in our hobby tend to forget is that the money is made from commercial sales, not shareware. I find it interesting that PKWare had their program out for a very long time, and that SEA took action only when it became a commercial competitor. When I first saw those ads, I said to myself, "Self, if it was me, I'd blow a gasket." SEA obviously did, and I can't say that I blame them. And, they've gained their legal point. Unfortunately, they've never been much for PR, and are losing that battle to what I see as a very orchestrated PR effort, by PKWare and it's supporters, to paint SEA as a great villain and threat to the hobby, when in fact they are neither. PKWare was loathe to release the specs for the 'squash' algorithm, which is why many of us banned ARChives containing squashed members from our boards for quite a while. It was PKWare, the third player on the ARC scene (after SEA and Vern), which embedded strings disparaging Vern in their programs. For the longest time I wouldn't use a PKWare program because of that; if they were that unprofessional, then how good could the program be? I'm glad that the programs were finally cleansed of that trash. But given this, and given that it's quite likely that the new PKWare product will be released commercially as well as shareware, I will believe that the full specs will be made public when the event occurs. Ciao, DaveK There is 1 Reply. #: 211435 S9/Hot Topic [S] 12-Sep-88 09:18:33 Sb: #211401-#PK* Was Never Necessary! Fm: Robert Blacher 72677,3305 To: DaveK 76556,2203 (X) I don't really disagree with anything you've said. And, I'm not much interested in separating "good guys" from "bad guys" in the SEA/PKWARE controversy. I am interested in what this means for the future. SEA, by its words and its actions, has made ARC a proprietary compression/storage system. There is some fuzziness about what is and what is not permitted without a license, and what the licensing terms will be. But, the overall proprietary nature of ARC remains and it makes using ARCs on BBS systems a legal minefield. You suggest that, based on Katz's past behavior, his new program will be no different, notwithstanding some recent statements from him to the contrary. You may, alas, be right. We won't know for several months. Dhesi has taken ZOO out of contention with his recent license changes. Cooper has sold DWC to a commercial outfit, taking that program out of contention, too. So, fellow sysops, what are we going to use? There are 2 Replies. #: 211439 S9/Hot Topic [S] 12-Sep-88 10:09:37 Sb: #211435-#PK* Was Never Necessary! Fm: DaveK 76556,2203 To: Robert Blacher 72677,3305 (X) Well, here's a suggestion. We have some mighty fine programmers here on CI$ in IBMSW. Why not a group project to develop a new file archiving system that will very clearly be in the public domain? It will benefit all involved, and if CI$ starts changing libraries over to the new format, that might provide some driving force as well. How about it, sysops? Viable idea? Ciao, DaveK There are 2 Replies. #: 211443 S9/Hot Topic [S] 12-Sep-88 10:39:01 Sb: #211439-#PK* Was Never Necessary! Fm: SysOp Don Watkins 76703,750 To: DaveK 76556,2203 (X) Dave - Absolutely! If the user community wants to move in that direction IBMNET would be willing to provide a development area and any other resources needed. My company would be willing to donate $1,000 for miscellaneous expenses should there be any. The only stipulation would be that the resulting program be free to end users. This is in reference to registration fees. This isn't in reference to the program being distributed by other services, disk vendors or computer clubs. There may not be a good solution to those wishing to distribute the program with a commercial product. I was thinking that those wishing to do so be required to donate some small fee to a charity or otherwise pump something back into the community. And there are lots of details that I'm fuzzy on but I'm sure they could be worked out. If the demand is there we'll meet it. There are 3 Replies. #: 211618 S9/Hot Topic [S] 13-Sep-88 01:35:26 Sb: #211443-#PK* Was Never Necessary! Fm: Vic Wagner/Metadigm 76046,3004 To: SysOp Don Watkins 76703,750 (X) If the program is to be 'free' to end users, why would there be _any_ objection to me putting it on a commercial disk, along with _my_ product? There is 1 Reply. #: 211663 S9/Hot Topic [S] 13-Sep-88 08:15:12 Sb: #211618-PK* Was Never Necessary! Fm: SysOp Don Watkins 76703,750 To: Vic Wagner/Metadigm 76046,3004 (X) Vic - That's a difficult question and I don't know if there would be a satisfactory answer but if it's used to distribute a product that costs money and is used to the benefit of the distirbutor rather than the end user is this fair? I don't know. Would asking a for a $100 contribution to the United Way on the part of the company distributing the program be unfair. Pure speculation and thinking out loud. IF such a thing should come to pass and IF such a thing should happen I'm sure it would get ample debate. #: 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 There are 6 Replies. #: 211644 S9/Hot Topic [S] 13-Sep-88 07:10:23 Sb: #211628-PK* Was Never Necessary! Fm: SysOp Chris Dunford 76703,2002 To: Dave Hardy 72371,20 (X) 1) What causes you to says that we "refused to support" PKARC? It has always been available here, and many of our download desriptions suggest using either it or ARC-E for de-arcing. Your statement is not supported by any actual facts. 2) We have no control over what the non-lawyers here say. 3) Considering that there's a free alternative to ARC available here, I have trouble understanding how SEA has a monopoly, but that's neither here nor there. We have no say or control. 4) We have no friends at SEA, so I don't know why you're telling us this. I'd suggest that you write SEA and let them know. 5) CIS has no influence over us in terms of what programs we use or recommend. 6) Again I don't know why you're making this point to us. To the best of my knowledge none of us has ever talked to anyone at SEA. Write and tell them what you think. I am at a loss to explain your reaction. As far as I know, none of us even uses ARC (Don registered a copy, as he does most of the shareware we have here, but uses ARC-E). Some of us may have expressed personal opinions (I believe that we're still entitled to such) indicating primarily that most of us don't have many facts on the case and that some of the opinions voiced may have been premature, but that's about it. If you can find any messages where any of us is "blatantly pro SEA" I'd like to see them. I might add that we are perfectly entitled to hold any position we want, just as you are, but that is not a position we have taken. And, of course your message will appear. If you think we practice censorship here you are very much mistaken. Your apology is accepted. -Chris #: 211647 S9/Hot Topic [S] 13-Sep-88 07:16:41 Sb: #211628-#PK* Was Never Necessary! Fm: SysOp Chris Dunford 76703,2002 To: Dave Hardy 72371,20 (X) Oh, one other point. IBMNET has publicly offered to contribute $1000 toward incidental expenses of a group to be formed here with the stated purpose of developing a public domain compression/library scheme to replace ARC. Can you explain to me how that fits in with your theory that we're blatantly pro-SEA? -Chris There is 1 Reply. #: 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 There is 1 Reply. #: 211998 S9/Hot Topic [S] 14-Sep-88 15:23:25 Sb: #211828-#PK* Was Never Necessary! Fm: George Kuzmowycz 76266,2441 To: Dave Hardy 72371,20 (X) In #211828 you make reference to an apology being accepted before having been offered. Unfortunately, in #211628, you say " If I am wrong, you have my apologies in advance. " ..Oops?? maybe You go on to say "The trademark issue is a loser to SEA..." In the court of public opinion, or of law?? I agree that from a PR point they probably have a loser here, but legally? Who knows. I'm not a lawyer, and even if you are, I nevertheless doubt you're the judge in this case, so why hand down decisions? Your third paragraph, with Herfensomething indexes and all, was incomprehensible. Made my eyes water. Had me groping for a Kleenex [generic, or no?] Sorry, too far afield. -gk- There is 1 Reply. #: 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 There is 1 Reply. #: 212225 S9/Hot Topic [S] 15-Sep-88 10:17:01 Sb: #212107-#PK* Was Never Necessary! Fm: George Kuzmowycz 76266,2441 To: Dave Hardy 72371,20 (X) I am certainly more comfortable with the way you state it now, with "I think enough is known" and "the probabilities of that result are extremely high". Earlier you stated that the trademark claims are invalid as if it were an established fact; now it sounds more like your opinion, which, learned though it may be, could, at least conceivably, be incorrect. That was my only point. And such possibly different opinions, after all, are what make for horse races and lawsuits (and keep the lawyers in business). BTW, should I infer from your closing sentence that you would *not* be delighted to hear a different view from an unqualified non-lawyer? As it seems that many non-lawyers (such as myself) are expressing many different views here. We even pay for the privilege. There is 1 Reply. #: 212631 S9/Hot Topic [S] 16-Sep-88 23:47:51 Sb: #212225-PK* Was Never Necessary! Fm: Dave Hardy 72371,20 To: George Kuzmowycz 76266,2441 No such inference George. This place would wouldn't be so much fun if we all, including me sometimes, did not express our views on relevant matters, qualified or not. Besides we're used to hearing the hearse horse snicker as the lawyer heads from the undertakers to the cemetary. BUT, that "ARC" trademark is non-sense in the contexts that have been discussed here. Dave Hardy #: 211649 S9/Hot Topic [S] 13-Sep-88 07:22:53 Sb: #211628-#PK* Was Never Necessary! Fm: Tom Neff 76556,2536 To: Dave Hardy 72371,20 (X) Thank you, I was waiting for a message like that. No Hot Topic thread is complete without one! ;-) There are 2 Replies. #: 211671 S9/Hot Topic [S] 13-Sep-88 09:07:47 Sb: #211649-PK* Was Never Necessary! Fm: Basil Copeland/CRC 74240,1161 To: Tom Neff 76556,2536 (X) The real reason you liked Dave Hardy's message is that it made *you* look cool and dispassionate . -Basil #: 211829 S9/Hot Topic [S] 13-Sep-88 22:04:27 Sb: #211649-#PK* Was Never Necessary! Fm: Dave Hardy 72371,20 To: Tom Neff 76556,2536 (X) See you finally goaded me beyond reason. A high compliment. Query: may I take it that any bias or conflict of interest which you might have in this matter would have been disclosed? Dave Hardy There is 1 Reply. #: 212124 S9/Hot Topic [S] 14-Sep-88 23:06:43 Sb: #211829-#PK* Was Never Necessary! Fm: Tom Neff 76556,2536 To: Dave Hardy 72371,20 (X) If you read one or two of my other messages you will see I have no conflict of interest here. I am Vern's friend but surely not the more so for having dragged his name thru this. I am fully capable of generating all the electrostatic flame/thread energy I need from internal sources. Frankly I think any commercial interest would be a fool to retain me to flack for it, because I *WILL* speak my mind... There is 1 Reply. #: 212632 S9/Hot Topic [S] 16-Sep-88 23:47:57 Sb: #212124-PK* Was Never Necessary! Fm: Dave Hardy 72371,20 To: Tom Neff 76556,2536 (X) Things are in a bad way when you and I start sounding reasonable. Have we forgotten our vows? Dave Hardy #: 211667 S9/Hot Topic [S] 13-Sep-88 08:51:55 Sb: #211628-PK* Was Never Necessary! Fm: SysOp Don Watkins 76703,750 To: Dave Hardy 72371,20 (X) Dave - Well gee, I guess it might look like I'm pro SEA as I find a a lot of times I take an unpopular postion. In this case I felt a lot of decisions were being based upon emotion and personal preference and with very few facts available and I've tried to stick to the known facts. Later on I may be proved wrong, it certainly won't be the first time. PKWare products have always been available here but perhaps your remark about non-support is in regards to squashed files. True, we've only recently started accepting them (tho previously we converted 'em and never rejected them). This is because that previously there wasn't a free method of extracting squashed files and it seemed unfair to require members to purchase a program in order to use the files here. I still have reservations; ARC files with squashed members are not compatible with ARC as used on other machines. We are not an island. I'm not a lawyer fer sure and have never tried to make the impression I was. I'm do try and consider what little legal fact I can pick up. I don't know if it's a monopoly or not. I've always been fuzzy on what constituted a monopoly. I've never talked to anyone from SEA. I would suggest you write them a note and tell them how you feel. Corporate CIS views are not represented here. I doubt if they are involved in any conspiracy against anyone. It is my understanding that a trademark has been applied for and perhaps issued. I don't have any affiliation with the trademark registration folks. And my opinions are my own and because I'm a sysop I don't think I automatically give up my right to an opinion. For what it's worth the "recommended" ARC utility is ARC-E as it's a small download and it's free to the end user and doesn't benefit either SEA or PKWare. I hope this makes you feel a bit better but if not, and if you're willing, we can talk about it. #: 211672 S9/Hot Topic [S] 13-Sep-88 09:11:24 Sb: #211628-#PK* Was Never Necessary! Fm: SysOp Don Watkins 76703,750 To: Dave Hardy 72371,20 (X) Dave - Oh, and if I could make one more observations. The way I see it I'm not IBMNET. Rather IBMNET is, and always has been, a collection of members and in that context IBMNET is, in my opinion, strongly pro-PKWare. I have always tried to take great care to stress that the sysops aren't the strength of IBMNET nor are we blessed with any special insights. If I created an impression to the contrary I didn't intend to. And again we can still talk about it if you like. I've not yet been wrong this year and was hoping for a perfect year but if I am I am . There are 2 Replies. #: 211729 S9/Hot Topic [S] 13-Sep-88 15:22:45 Sb: #211672-PK* Was Never Necessary! Fm: Tom Neff 76556,2536 To: SysOp Don Watkins 76703,750 (X) I thought I made a mistake once, but I was wrong. #: 211830 S9/Hot Topic [S] 13-Sep-88 22:04:38 Sb: #211672-PK* Was Never Necessary! Fm: Dave Hardy 72371,20 To: SysOp Don Watkins 76703,750 (X) It occurs to me that in fact you may be the keeper of a nut house. Regards from one of the Cashews. Dave Hardy #: 211955 S9/Hot Topic [S] 14-Sep-88 11:32:02 Sb: #211628-#PK* Was Never Necessary! Fm: george kuzmowycz 76266,2441 To: Dave Hardy 72371,20 (X) Thank you, thank you and thank you for your calm and dispassionate statement of views on this subject, and just when I thought things were getting hot. Sitting here as your basic John Q. Computeruser, with no interest, pecuniary or otherwise, in either SEA or PK, and not being a sysop, either here on CI$ or anywhere else, the only blatant bias I can observe on the part of IBMNET is one against jumping to conclusions on the basis of insufficient data. I do not believe this kind of bias to be a Bad Thing. I see no pro-SEA bias or pro-monopoly bias when PK* has been available for d/l'ing for years, and when ARC-E.COM is specifically recommended for extracting. What I do see, however, is an appalling eagerness on the part of very many people to crucify SEA on the basis of a really weak collection of factoids, rumors and gossip. The problem basically is that those who know ain't talking, and those who are talking don't know. The most significant development I've seen so far is SEA's Mr. Foray saying here that PK stole code, with Mr. Katz apparently replying (through a 3rd party) that he did not. Since this may be the crux of the argument, and since both Messrs. Foray and Katz presumably know the facts, this (unless I am using the wrong truth tables) necessarily makes one, and only one, of them a blatant liar with respect to the major argument. What evidence have I to decide which of them it is? Unfortunately, none. Which leaves me with no prudent choice other than suspending judgement. The tragic aspect is that I have this sinking feeling we will never know the truth. BTW, your accusations against the sysops here of "wishing to eliminate PK" and of censoring messages are Mighty Serious Stuff. I'm sure I am not the only user who would be interested in reviewing the evidence you have accumulated to support these charges. -gk- There are 2 Replies. #: 212108 S9/Hot Topic [S] 14-Sep-88 22:37:31 Sb: #211955-#PK* Was Never Necessary! Fm: Dave Hardy 72371,20 To: george kuzmowycz 76266,2441 (X) 1) "Res ipsa loquitur" 2) "Thou shall not crucify mankind upon this arc of gold" Dave Hardy There is 1 Reply. #: 212224 S9/Hot Topic [S] 15-Sep-88 10:16:52 Sb: #212108-#PK* Was Never Necessary! Fm: George Kuzmowycz 76266,2441 To: Dave Hardy 72371,20 (X) > 1) "Res ipsa loquitur" Sorry, Latin rusty... as in nonexistent... > 2) "Thou shall not crucify mankind upon this arc of gold" Am I dull, or what? Totally missing the allusion. -gk- There is 1 Reply. #: 212296 S9/Hot Topic [S] 15-Sep-88 17:47:59 Sb: #212224-#PK* Was Never Necessary! Fm: dick dowd 71515,313 To: George Kuzmowycz 76266,2441 (X) George. The "Res" quote means "If it walks like a Duck, quacks like a Duck and swims likea Duck, it ain't a cat, obviously." The arc of gold quote is I believe a political comment about the Arc de Triumph or "hole card" in Deuces Wild. It means, I believe, that our opponent has laid all his cards on the table or has a monkey on his back getting off. That, I believe, is the scope(s) of it (wink) (wink). Who would forget the great looser. I have enjoyed this thread immensely an am reminded of Eddie Cantor's old side kick "pARC YourPkarKis who appeared with him in a number of monochrome films. Dick Dowd. There are 2 Replies. #: 212452 S9/Hot Topic [S] 16-Sep-88 10:04:57 Sb: #212296-#PK* Was Never Necessary! Fm: George Kuzmowycz 76266,2441 To: dick dowd 71515,313 (X) Dick, many thanks for the explication. I can see clearly now. Incidentally, beware Ted Turner catching your reference to monochrome films, as I'm sure he will rape them, too. -gk- There is 1 Reply. #: 212475 S9/Hot Topic [S] 16-Sep-88 12:51:42 Sb: #212452-#PK* Was Never Necessary! Fm: dick dowd 71515,313 To: George Kuzmowycz 76266,2441 (X) I'm surprised Ted hasn't offered a simle solution to the B&W film. Simply turn off your color and you too can see it in B&W. Works like a charm. Just a little dark in spots. Color does, however, give you the explanation why Mary Astor was such a star. She really looks quite beutiful in RGB. DD There is 1 Reply. #: 212801 S9/Hot Topic [S] 17-Sep-88 20:02:26 Sb: #212475-PK* Was Never Necessary! Fm: Glenn Hart 76703,4226 To: dick dowd 71515,313 If you'd like to visit our Consumer Electronics Forum (GO CEFORUM), any number of members would be happy to explain to you in detail why merely turning down the chroma level on a colorized film is NOT the same thing as watching an original monochrome print. Glenn #: 212633 S9/Hot Topic [S] 16-Sep-88 23:48:02 Sb: #212296-PK* Was Never Necessary! Fm: Dave Hardy 72371,20 To: dick dowd 71515,313 Your 212296 collects the jackpot; my compliments for ending all this with style and Grace; amazing that Grace, how she gets around! Dave Hardy #: 212170 S9/Hot Topic [S] 15-Sep-88 06:02:18 Sb: #211955-#PK* Was Never Necessary! Fm: Earle Robinson 76004,1762 To: george kuzmowycz 76266,2441 (X) You have missed hardy's apology. He spoke too hastily and that question, which never should have been raised, has been put to rest. -er There is 1 Reply. #: 212223 S9/Hot Topic [S] 15-Sep-88 10:16:49 Sb: #212170-PK* Was Never Necessary! Fm: George Kuzmowycz 76266,2441 To: Earle Robinson 76004,1762 (X) I didn't miss the apology, as it was offered in the same paragraph as the charge was made. My point was that this was a serious enough charge that it shouldn't have been mentioned in the first place absent compelling evidence. He leapt before looking, as I believe he has acknowledged. -gk- #: 211673 S9/Hot Topic [S] 13-Sep-88 09:15:15 Sb: #211443-#PK* Was Never Necessary! Fm: William J. Hinkle 71121,3211 To: SysOp Don Watkins 76703,750 (X) Well, if anyone wants to take up the IBMNET compressor/librarian development that you mentioned, they might want to note that the LZW compression scheme ought to be "safe" to use. I know that there was some earlier speculation that there might be a proprietary claim on that method; however, CompuServe uses that same method in its GIF file format, which is not proprietary (the docs & "GIF" are copyrighted, of course). I imagine the CIS lawyers believe use of LZW in and of itself is safe (not that I personally think there would be any basis for such a claim except by Mr. Lempel, Ziev, or Welch!). Note also that the TIFF specification now includes LZW. The newest version of SEA's ARC program applies LZW compression WHILE deciding what compression method to use, apparently because LZW usually gives the best results among their arsenal of methods. In fact, a general comp/lib spec could very well be based on the GIF spec, which is just that specifically for picture files. That might be someplace to start. There is 1 Reply. #: 211681 S9/Hot Topic [S] 13-Sep-88 09:47:04 Sb: #211673-#PK* Was Never Necessary! Fm: SysOp Don Watkins 76703,750 To: William J. Hinkle 71121,3211 (X) William - Now that is an excellent idea! I also suspect there would be plenty of code for various machines. Still in thinking out loud mode, but definately an idea to put on the list. There is 1 Reply. #: 211951 S9/Hot Topic [S] 14-Sep-88 11:13:54 Sb: #211681-#PK* Was Never Necessary! Fm: William J. Hinkle 71121,3211 To: SysOp Don Watkins 76703,750 (X) You are right; there is plenty of code for various machines -- all you'd have to do is get the right developers over in PICS pumped up. Of course, IBM-PC executables aren't much use on a Mac or an Atari, but other files would be. Another interesting advantage would be that the system could automatically recogize & embed GIF files in the library it creates without trying to compress them again, which usually makes them larger instead of smaller! ARC'ing GIF files in order to transport them with other files (like a README, for example) is currently a losing proposition. There is 1 Reply. #: 212695 S9/Hot Topic [S] 17-Sep-88 10:37:39 Sb: #211951-PK* Was Never Necessary! Fm: Winston Barrows 73537,1366 To: William J. Hinkle 71121,3211 Forums using large text files like COOKS, INVFORUM (investors) and WINEFORUM would love to be able to download compressed files. #: 211485 S9/Hot Topic [S] 12-Sep-88 14:15:24 Sb: #211439-#PK* Was Never Necessary! Fm: Tom Neff 76556,2536 To: DaveK 76556,2203 (X) Actually Rahul's format is in the PD if it comes to that. All that isn't is version 2.01 of his main 'zoo' program, which carries some damfool distribution restrictions essentially designed to freeze CIS out. There is 1 Reply. #: 211500 S9/Hot Topic [S] 12-Sep-88 16:21:04 Sb: #211485-#PK* Was Never Necessary! Fm: Robert Blacher 72677,3305 To: Tom Neff 76556,2536 (X) As best I understand it (and, lord knows, Rahul hasn't made this easy), the ZOO format is no more public domain than is ARC (according to SEA, at least). Versions of ZOO.EXE *prior* to 2.x are public domain, as are LOOZ (the extractor) and other assorted utils, but he has not relinquished whatever rights he may have to the format. I can't see trading one hornet's nest of legal complications for another. I think Rahul's actions are unwise, at best, and you've seen the messages I wrote to him on USENET on this subject. But, it's his program and he can do what he wishes. It is, however, the online community that has to choose a new compression system, if that becomes necessary, and my own view is that Rahul has taken ZOO out of the running. There is 1 Reply. #: 211654 S9/Hot Topic [S] 13-Sep-88 07:27:20 Sb: #211500-#PK* Was Never Necessary! Fm: Tom Neff 76556,2536 To: Robert Blacher 72677,3305 (X) I would have to switch systems and check, Robert, but didn't Rahul just explicitly tell us in Usenet's comp.sys.ibm.pc.d (that's right CISers, a name even harder to remember than GO BPROGA! ) that the format was released to the PD? There is 1 Reply. #: 211929 S9/Hot Topic [S] 14-Sep-88 09:30:27 Sb: #211654-#PK* Was Never Necessary! Fm: Earle Robinson 76004,1762 To: Tom Neff 76556,2536 (X) I seem to remember that zoo's author has specifically excluded bbs with hourly charges >$6 (or >$7, I don't remember which). This seems to deliberately include genie, but exclude cis. Why this prejudice? Well, there are a number of regular bbs users who object to cis' charges, though I think they are quite wrong, since the value of cis has been demonstrated, and its charges have come down, in both absolute & relative terms, over the years. On the other hand, all the subscription bbs seem to be regularly raising their charges. Anyway, there is some prejudice among many in the bbs world against cis & its competitors. -er There are 2 Replies. #: 212054 S9/Hot Topic [S] 14-Sep-88 20:26:43 Sb: #211929-PK* Was Never Necessary! Fm: Ed Fitzgerald 72447,1631 To: Earle Robinson 76004,1762 (X) A messsage I read recently on BIX gave the figure as $8.00. Another message (on *BIX!!* no less) complained about the high cost of CIS. Go figure. #: 212125 S9/Hot Topic [S] 14-Sep-88 23:12:17 Sb: #211929-PK* Was Never Necessary! Fm: Tom Neff 76556,2536 To: Earle Robinson 76004,1762 (X) Yes Earle, Rahul aced 1200+bps CIS with an $8/hr limit. Thus my reference to "damfool restrictions designed to freeze out CIS" or however I phrased it. We have flamed his Zoohood about this on Usenet but so far he's hanging tough. However I would reiterate that (a) the restriction applies not to the ZOO format or zoo products in general, but only to the distribution package for the latest 2.01 version of his full fledged ZOO manipulator; (b) previous versions of ZOO are guaranteed to be able to handle what 2.01 handles; (c) the looz and ooz and whatever other programs, as well as zoo.exe before 2.01 and the format itself, are all still PD. So there is plenty to work with regardless; and we know it all runs OK which is more than can be said about future vaporware standards. #: 211484 S9/Hot Topic [S] 12-Sep-88 14:13:37 Sb: #211435-#PK* Was Never Necessary! Fm: Tom Neff 76556,2536 To: Robert Blacher 72677,3305 (X) How about ARC? The settlement doesn't appear to claim that the ARC format is proprietary, only that the ARC program name is trademarked. The other stuff seems specific to their problems with Katz, which have nothing to do with you and me. We know there are other programs out there and Foray has said they're welcome to continue. Where one would appear to get in trouble is if one goes commercial with a program whose name mimics ARC, and/or whose code is taken from ARC. I don't see that as affecting the BBS/user community. Responsible sysops will separate the sentimental "awwww they sued my hero Phil!" reaction from the factual consequences of these recent events. The users come first, the ARC format meets their needs and I'm sure someone will fill Phil's niche in time, to the extent that Vern's and others' fine stuff doesn't already. There is 1 Reply. #: 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. There is 1 Reply. #: 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. There is 1 Reply. #: 211675 S9/Hot Topic [S] 13-Sep-88 09:24:16 Sb: #211656-#PK* Was Never Necessary! Fm: Robert Blacher 72677,3305 To: Tom Neff 76556,2536 (X) Foray's statements about not hassling shareware authors have been quite vague and limited to programs that simply do an ARC V. That doesn't cut it. And, whether a license is $1 or $1,000,000 is irrelevant to my concerns. The fact that such a license is even offerred merely demonstrates that SEA does, in fact, claim a right to the ARC format itself. Authors of utilities/doors/etc. used on BBS systems to manipulate the files we store should not be dependent on the largesse and whims of any entity, whether it be SEA, PKWARE or anyone else. SEA *could* resolve this by issuing a clear, detailed statement about what it considers proprietary and what is not, and by publishing specifications for the ARChive format and releasing any rights it may have to that format (not to its code, just to the format). Nothing Wallace, Foray, or any other SEA representative has said to date points in those directions. And, then there's this trademark minefield to wander through in deciding whether you can use the word ARC in your program name or even documentation. Foo. There is 1 Reply. #: 211732 S9/Hot Topic [S] 13-Sep-88 15:38:03 Sb: #211675-#PK* Was Never Necessary! Fm: Tom Neff 76556,2536 To: Robert Blacher 72677,3305 (X) I submit that authors of utilities, doors, BBS's etc. are already subject to the "whims and largesse" of any number of entities. SEA doesn't appear to loom as a particularly fearsome example. I agree with you that we need a better answer from Foray about how far third party programs can go without exciting legal interest. But by the same token, if I were developing something I thought might be affected, I wouldn't putz around here waiting for smoke signals, I would pick up the phone and settle the matter. There is 1 Reply. #: 211740 S9/Hot Topic [S] 13-Sep-88 16:18:44 Sb: #211732-PK* Was Never Necessary! Fm: Robert Blacher 72677,3305 To: Tom Neff 76556,2536 (X) >> "I agree with you that we need a better answer from Foray [SEA] about how far third party programs can go without exciting legal interest." Phew! I knew we could find something on which to agree ! And, that happens to be the most important point I was trying to make. We need better answers about these issues from SEA, from PKWARE, from Rahul Dhesi and from anyone else who provides a storage/compression system for use by the online community. When/if we finally get those answers, it will be possible to decide which of the current systems, IF ANY, is appropriate. Until then, the blind defense of ARC, or the equally blind embrace of the new "PAK" system, is simply premature. As for testing SEA's policies with a real world example, that's in the works (enuf said). I'll certainly provide information in this forum when it is appropriate to do so and I hope others will share their experiences in this regard as well. #: 211414 S9/Hot Topic [S] 12-Sep-88 07:08:49 Sb: #PK* Was Never Necessary! Fm: Bob Johnson 71555,1247 To: Tom Neff 76556,2536 (X) You state repeatedly, Tom, that PK* was never necessary. I have the need to unarc binary files direct to the printer - it is a graphics file. PK* does that, and I believe the others do not. Specifically, ARCE does not and ARC is such a pig no one should have to use it. You are such a passionate defender of SEA, it would probably clear the air if you were to either reveal or disclaim any interest you have in the controversy. There is 1 Reply. #: 211421 S9/Hot Topic [S] 12-Sep-88 07:45:23 Sb: #211414-#PK* Was Never Necessary! Fm: Tom Neff 76556,2536 To: Bob Johnson 71555,1247 (X) Type the following: ARCE arcfile [members] /P > PRN to send the output directly to the printer. Been there for a long time. For a full list of what ARCE can do, type ARCE by itself, or read the help file. I have no material interest whatsoever in this controversy. I know Vern and count him as a friend, but since HE'S not making much of anything off of this whole situation, I assure you I'M not. And if I know Vern, he's probably po'd at me for dragging his name through this discussion to begin with. No, the driving force for my side in this thread is solely my personal wellspring of cantankerousness. Ask anyone. There are 2 Replies. #: 211433 S9/Hot Topic [S] 12-Sep-88 08:52:24 Sb: #211421-#PK* Was Never Necessary! Fm: Basil Copeland/CRC 74240,1161 To: Tom Neff 76556,2536 (X) Fortunately, your "wellspring of cantankerousness" is only about 5 feet deep, otherwise I'd drown in it: I certainly can't swim in it. Like Voltaire said, "I may disagree...but..." I'm still on the sidelines, waiting for the dust to settle. I'm a registered PK user, and don't want to believe he did something unethical. Maybe just stupid or ignorant? (His being boorish, uncouth, arrogant or self-centered would not make me stop using what I consider to be a very "necessary" product.) I'm not sure I like SEA's attitude either. As I noted in my message to Foray (which he has either not seen, not had time to respond, or intends not to respond), I emphasized the strong commitment to the user interest that dominates the pc community. I don't think anyone can flout that interest, and survive. (LOTUS is no exception...it's just taking longer because of its foothold in the Fortune 500, which is not a charter member of the pc community. But even LOTUS is losing its grip...which it was bound to do given its attitude toward the end-user.) -Basil There is 1 Reply. #: 211482 S9/Hot Topic [S] 12-Sep-88 14:06:10 Sb: #211433-PK* Was Never Necessary! Fm: Tom Neff 76556,2536 To: Basil Copeland/CRC 74240,1161 (X) Granted SEA didn't do too much in the way of improvement, including speed increases they definitely could have used. However, it has to be said that in an area as sensitive as file *archiving*, too much "improvement" activity is not a good thing. The greatest single thing about the ARC standard is that it's stable now. ARCE.COM et al may not be glamorous, but it's not their JOB to be glamorous. They should just keep plugging along, while obsoleting the minimum amount of installed user software along the way. Can you imagine what chaos would result if dozens of fertile programmer minds were constantly at work churning out a new compression algorithm once a month on the average? The squashing donnybrook would look like a tea party by comparison. #: 211835 S9/Hot Topic [S] 13-Sep-88 22:39:10 Sb: #211421-#PK* Was Never Necessary! Fm: Bob Johnson 71555,1247 To: Tom Neff 76556,2536 (X) I know ARCE can extract to the printer, but it cannot (unless I am mistaken or the version has changed) replicate the /b DOS switch to copy a graphics file (binary) to the printer. PKXARC can do that, according to a friend of mine who needs to be able to do exactly that. If my facts are straight (and I think they are) I have shown you a case where pkxarc is the only tool that works. There is 1 Reply. #: 212129 S9/Hot Topic [S] 14-Sep-88 23:20:16 Sb: #211835-#PK* Was Never Necessary! Fm: Tom Neff 76556,2536 To: Bob Johnson 71555,1247 (X) I'm not quite sure what the "/b DOS switch" is (are you referring to a /b switch on the PRINT command?) but I assure you that ARCE will pipe the exact contents of the file to stdout and with > PRN thence to the printer, so that if the file is printer ready it *will* get printed correctly. If there is some intermediate processing needed you can use the DOS pipe facility. Perhaps you could provide a specific example that you don't feel ARCE can handle? There is 1 Reply. #: 212694 S9/Hot Topic [S] 17-Sep-88 10:34:37 Sb: #212129-#PK* Was Never Necessary! Fm: Bob Johnson 71555,1247 To: Tom Neff 76556,2536 (X) I checked. ARCE does print the thing, but what it adds is a text header at the top which also prints. Since what we wanted was to just get the graphics image clean, the PKXARC program was our only choice. Mind you, this isn't earthshaking, it just illustrates one niche where the PK program has a capability unmatched by arce. There are 2 Replies. #: 212708 S9/Hot Topic [S] 17-Sep-88 11:54:20 Sb: #212694-PK* Was Never Necessary! Fm: Tom Neff 76556,2536 To: Bob Johnson 71555,1247 (X) Vern ought to be shoving the header out stderr rather than stdout, we should point that out to him. #: 212709 S9/Hot Topic [S] 17-Sep-88 11:59:26 Sb: #212694-#PK* Was Never Necessary! Fm: SysOp Chris Dunford 76703,2002 To: Bob Johnson 71555,1247 (X) One nice thing about ARCE vs the others is that Vern is here and can respond to requests like this one. As Tom says, all we have to do is ask Vern to send the header to the error device rather than to standard output and that will be that. Should be a few lines of code, max. Unfortunately, we can't ask PK or SEA for small changes like this, cuz they aren't around (or weren't, until the last few days). -Chris There is 1 Reply. #: 212771 S9/Hot Topic [S] 17-Sep-88 17:58:15 Sb: #212709-#PK* Was Never Necessary! Fm: SysOp Vern Buerg 70007,1212 To: SysOp Chris Dunford 76703,2002 (X) Okay, I'll change ARCE to send the header to the error device. That'll give me a chance to spruce up ARCE a bit, too. #: 212120 S9/Hot Topic [S] 14-Sep-88 22:54:00 Sb: #PK* Was Never Necessary! Fm: Graeme W. McRae 73307,2453 To: Tom Neff 76556,2536 (X) Tom, as the author of a shareware self-extractor, I disagree with your characterization of the entire class of programs as a Very Bad Thing. Let me address your points: 1) "They give me no options about what I want done with the contents." Do you seriously claim that this is an intrinsic property of self-extractors? Mine gives you options, telling the user all about the file, and asking for a file or device name before beginning the extraction process. 2) "They ask that I download something and execute it as-is with no overall integrity checking." Yeah, but if you get a bad copy of a self-extracting program it'll just lock up your PC. Are you aware that some files with an .ARC extension have been known to hang a PC if you try to un-arc them, due to bugs in ARC? 3) "This leaves you wide open to ... Trojan mishaps." Self-extracting programs are *NOT* more prone to viruses or any other intentional tampering than other programs. Anyone can ARC-E a program, tamper with it, ARCA it, and then upload the result. In fact, the .ARC format contributed to some Trojan mishaps in its time, according to legend. The infamous ARC513 program was a Trojan Horse which would never have been downloaded had it not been for the .ARC format. --Graeme There is 1 Reply. #: 212140 S9/Hot Topic [S] 14-Sep-88 23:35:52 Sb: #212120-#PK* Was Never Necessary! Fm: Tom Neff 76556,2536 To: Graeme W. McRae 73307,2453 (X) Graeme, you and I usually fall on opposite sides of the visceral issues (no animus intended) so I can well believe that you write self-extractors. Let me address your points one at a time. 1. I do not claim that self extractors are intrinsically incapable of offering you options. I wish they all did. What I usually tell folks is that they "usually" don't... if only because, as I point out, self-x enthusiasts seem to have that drooling cretinous user in mind who can only muster the keystrokes to type one 6-letter command if he's lucky, so what good are extra fancy options? To the extent that yours behaves nice, it is the exception not the rule. It certainly ain't true with the ARC self-x's, and Rahul's ZOO can overcome a self-x only if you tack on a gobbledygook numeric switch that changes value with every version. 2. You have no way of knowing what all the bad things are that can happen if you run a bad copy of a self-x. It could sure be a lot worse than "locking up your PC." I saw much worse at work, where some poor sap XMODEM'd a self-x over a long distance line and screwed his FAT to the wall when he ran it. Now maybe a buggy version of ARC was once released that could crash too, but that becomes a known gotcha you can avoid (me, I use Vernware and sleep real peaceful nights ). Bad copies of self-x's occur randomly and MOST (see above) schemes offer the user no way of protecting himself until it's too late. 3. Self-x's are not more prone to tampering or malice than other programs from a purely technical standpoint, we agree. But they are sitting ducks from the human factors standpoint, because they slip in under the psychological "trust" barrier at many sites. It's the difference between letting a ghetto blaster carrying punk into your apartment building versus a uniformed telephone repairman. Either might be a burglar, but one has the reassuring appearance that he belongs there. There is 1 Reply. #: 212196 S9/Hot Topic [S] 15-Sep-88 08:34:27 Sb: #212140-#PK* Was Never Necessary! Fm: Paul Mayer (GRAB Plus) 70040,645 To: Tom Neff 76556,2536 (X) Tom; I believe the point here is that self extracting ARC (or scrunched) files are needed. With addiditions to my GRAB Plus system and planned additions I was running short of disk space. Because of a great review in PC magazine most of my sales of this shareware system go to new computer users. These people are confused when it comes to ARC files and such. This means that first I was running out of disk space and really don't want to make an arc file just a simple self extracting manual. Then it had to be a simple method of unpacking itself for the user. Hence, I use Graeme's SCRNCH and with the exit routine modified to tell the user to turn on the printer as it will default to send the manual to the printer. Then they are also told that they may designate a drive and filename for writing the manual to disk. That freed up enough space so I could satisfy my customer requests for more options without adding more disks. Nope no matter what you say in some cases the need for the simple self extracting file is really needed. - Paul There is 1 Reply. #: 212205 S9/Hot Topic [S] 15-Sep-88 09:05:12 Sb: #212196-#PK* Was Never Necessary! Fm: Tom Neff 76556,2536 To: Paul Mayer (GRAB Plus) 70040,645 (X) ARCE.COM occupies 7k. Try running ARCA on your file(s) and adding the resulting ARC size to ARCE's 7k. If it fits, you don't need a self-extractor. At any rate, self-x's in diskette distribution are somewhat less obnoxious than in electronic distribution. There are 2 Replies. #: 212294 S9/Hot Topic [S] 15-Sep-88 17:42:06 Sb: #212205-#PK* Was Never Necessary! Fm: Paul Mayer (GRAB Plus) 70040,645 To: Tom Neff 76556,2536 (X) Tom; The only difference is that with my choice of SCRNCH as a self extracting packer, I was able to customize it. The image is there when the person types README at the DOS prompt and are given a choice on screen with the name of the product etc. rather than telling them to use an ARCE file. I just like the IMAGE that is shown by using SCRNCH. By the way I guess SEA's new product AXE does the same thing as SCRNCH in as it also makes packed COM and EXE files. So as pro SEA as you are, you should think that is a good idea.... Paul There is 1 Reply. #: 212298 S9/Hot Topic [S] 15-Sep-88 17:53:00 Sb: #212294-PK* Was Never Necessary! Fm: Tom Neff 76556,2536 To: Paul Mayer (GRAB Plus) 70040,645 (X) Glad SCRNCH's customizing features were of use to you. By the way, I am aware SEA has a self-extract facility too. It's just as lousy idea when they do it as when anyone else does it. #: 212449 S9/Hot Topic [S] 16-Sep-88 09:50:29 Sb: #212205-#PK* Was Never Necessary! Fm: Nelson Ford 71355,470 To: Tom Neff 76556,2536 (X) At the Public (Software) Library, we get calls nearly every day from novices who just cannot figure out how to use ARCE, although batch files, the ARCE.DOC file and extra doc files are included. Most recent example: caller: I can't get ARCE to work. Your instructions say to enter "A:ARCE A:somefile B:" and I don't have a drive B: psl: It also says that you should substitute the drive that you do have. Do you have a hard disk? caller: Yes, it's divided into drives C:, D: and E:. psl: Then substitute C: for B: caller: But C: is full. It's just for DOS. psl: Then substitute D: for B: caller: But I tried that and it couldn't find "somefile". psl: That is just an example. It tells you to substitute the name of the actual ARC file. caller: But... We've had disks returned as bad because the user tried to un-ARC non-ARC files (eg: MYSTUFF.DOC) and got error messages. We've had users call because they couldn't figure out that the same ARCE included on one disk could un-ARC files on another disk if they would just copy ARCE to their hard disk. Wanna hear more? There is 1 Reply. #: 212470 S9/Hot Topic [S] 16-Sep-88 12:17:12 Sb: #212449-#PK* Was Never Necessary! Fm: Tom Neff 76556,2536 To: Nelson Ford 71355,470 (X) (1) Have you considered that your instructions might need rewriting? (2) Do you really think that users this dumb would be able to use self-extractors correctly either? There are 2 Replies. #: 212476 S9/Hot Topic [S] 16-Sep-88 12:57:37 Sb: #212470-#PK* Was Never Necessary! Fm: Nelson Ford 71355,470 To: Tom Neff 76556,2536 (X) (1) The instructions say "To uncompress and uncombine these files, put this disk in drive A: and a blank, formatted disk in another drive and enter (example: SOMEFILE.ARC) A:ARCE A:SOMEFILE B: or, if going to a hard disk, use C: in place of B:" Perhaps you could suggest some wording that you think would be clearer. (2) Yes, self-extractors could be easier to use since after typing the name of the s-e, it could take over and ask for the drive to go to, etc. There is 1 Reply. #: 212479 S9/Hot Topic [S] 16-Sep-88 13:06:55 Sb: #212476-#PK* Was Never Necessary! Fm: Tom Neff 76556,2536 To: Nelson Ford 71355,470 (X) (1) Yes I could. I only have a moment to answer this message but I promise I will get back to you. (2) Since you are distributing a diskette you would have the luxury of supplying an INSTALL.BAT or .EXE that does any amount of hand holding to guide the user through installing the rest of the disk. It does not have to be done through a single self-extracting file. There is 1 Reply. #: 212513 S9/Hot Topic [S] 16-Sep-88 15:50:46 Sb: #212479-#PK* Was Never Necessary! Fm: Nelson Ford 71355,470 To: Tom Neff 76556,2536 (X) On the fly, I can tell you that if I have ARCed a file to fit it on a disk, it is unlikely that I have room for a complex bat file to guide a novice thru every conceivable step of un-ARCing files. There is 1 Reply. #: 212562 S9/Hot Topic [S] 16-Sep-88 20:04:27 Sb: #212513-#PK* Was Never Necessary! Fm: Paul Mayer (GRAB Plus) 70040,645 To: Nelson Ford 71355,470 (X) Nelson; Forget it! Tom just will not accept a self extracting setup. Everyone has tried to give him the good points as you have and he just won't budge! I'm willing to bet that Tom was captain of his debating team in High School. - Paul There is 1 Reply. #: 212606 S9/Hot Topic [S] 16-Sep-88 23:09:55 Sb: #212562-#PK* Was Never Necessary! Fm: Tom Neff 76556,2536 To: Paul Mayer (GRAB Plus) 70040,645 (X) Nonsense, the discussion is interesting. What is the point of you second guessing what others will say or accept. I happen to believe that self-x's are a Bad Thing (especially in electronic distribution -- somewhat less so on diskette) and have points to back up my position. Nelson disagrees and has points of his own. Whadda you got? There is 1 Reply. #: 212682 S9/Hot Topic [S] 17-Sep-88 08:10:30 Sb: #212606-PK* Was Never Necessary! Fm: Paul Mayer (GRAB Plus) 70040,645 To: Tom Neff 76556,2536 (X) Tom; I'm not "second guessing", since I know Nelson and as we are both members of the ASP. I was addressing my comment to him in a comeradary type of message. I know what his needs are with a self extracting ARC file. His needs are the same as mine. And the need is not for use on the electronic medium but on disk distribution. Nelson distributes my product. Nelson is one of the few distributers that will put simple instructions for people to use on the distribution disks. On my last version change I a little under 1K free on the distribution disk. That left nothing for Nelson to add his files. I might add that Nelson adds "common problems and answers", "simple instructions", and a "coupon" for a free disk with proof of Shareware registration! Show me other Shareware distributers that DO THAT! So my comment was to Nelson as I knew what his needs are and that in light of our conversations here, he (as well as I have been) will not be able to sway your opinion. It's just a simple case of black and white without any gray lines in between where our needs are. - Paul #: 212522 S9/Hot Topic [S] 16-Sep-88 16:10:05 Sb: #212470-#PK* Was Never Necessary! Fm: Mark Lutton 73106,1627 To: Tom Neff 76556,2536 (X) (I feel I must step in here and point out that the instructions and other documentation in Nelson Ford's Public (Software) Library disks and newsletter are the best I have seen anywhere. MOST shareware distributors put no instructions at all on their disks.) There is 1 Reply. #: 212607 S9/Hot Topic [S] 16-Sep-88 23:11:07 Sb: #212522-#PK* Was Never Necessary! Fm: Tom Neff 76556,2536 To: Mark Lutton 73106,1627 I'm sure Nelson appreciates your endorsement, but I'm also sure he'd be the first to point out that there is always room for improvement in introductory docos. There is 1 Reply. #: 212732 S9/Hot Topic [S] 17-Sep-88 14:20:25 Sb: #212607-#PK* Was Never Necessary! Fm: Graeme W. McRae 73307,2453 To: Tom Neff 76556,2536 (X) Tom, I hate to break what until now has been a perfect record, but this time, I agree with you. Almost any documentation can be improved. In Nelson's case, he asks the user to read a command from the page, then perform at least two mental substitutions before typing it into the computer. Hard as it may be to believe, this is beyond some users since they're just about at the stack-overflow point as it is. The suggestion I would make to improve his documentation is to make it longer. Yes, longer. The first page should say... If you have a hard disk, turn to page 5 If you have one floppy disk drive, turn to page 3. If you have two floppy disk drives, turn to page 2. If you aren't sure, here's how to determine what drives are on your PC... This approach gives the user just one thing to think about at a time. Once he turns to the appropriate page, the drive letters will be correct for his machine. I call this approach the "flowchart" approach. I have found that it is the most idiot-resistent type of instructions. When I do this, I purposely put different sets of instructions on different pages, to force the user to take some action after each decision. --Graeme There are 2 Replies. #: 212815 S9/Hot Topic [S] 17-Sep-88 21:31:42 Sb: #212732-#PK* Was Never Necessary! Fm: Nelson Ford 71355,470 To: Graeme W. McRae 73307,2453 What documentation? The information I provide is in a text/batchfile on the disk, and as I said before, to have a batch file large and complex enough to handle every conceivable system configuration would negate the benefit of ARCing the files. And then people still wouldn't be able to get it to work. One of my favorite old sayings is that it is so hard to makeanything foolproof because fools ae so ingenious. There is 1 Reply. #: 212898 S9/Hot Topic [S] 18-Sep-88 11:47:29 Sb: #212815-PK* Was Never Necessary! Fm: Tom Neff 76556,2536 To: Nelson Ford 71355,470 If you mail a diskette, you could slip a Xeroxed sheet in with it. #: 212897 S9/Hot Topic [S] 18-Sep-88 11:46:55 Sb: #212732-PK* Was Never Necessary! Fm: Tom Neff 76556,2536 To: Graeme W. McRae 73307,2453 That's pretty much what I had in mind too, Graeme. Much as it pains us, it's sometimes useful to read how the commercial bigs document their installs, and select the good points. (Heaven knows they don't always do it right themselves.) #: 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> There are 2 Replies. #: 211521 S9/Hot Topic [S] 12-Sep-88 18:38:59 Sb: #211506-#PK Response to SEA Fm: SysOp Don Watkins 76703,750 To: JOHN BOYD 75076,2466 (X) John - Thanks for the file. It'll be just a bit before it's available while we secure the ok from those participating in it. There is 1 Reply. #: 211666 S9/Hot Topic [S] 13-Sep-88 08:46:30 Sb: #211521-PK Response to SEA Fm: JOHN BOYD 75076,2466 To: SysOp Don Watkins 76703,750 (X) I understand the delay. Phil Katz's phone number is 1 - 414 - 352-3670, but I don't have any numbers for the other people listed in the file. #: 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." There are 4 Replies. #: 211868 S9/Hot Topic [S] 14-Sep-88 01:04:36 Sb: #211769-#PK Response to SEA Fm: Gary Nelson 73627,2203 To: Andrew Foray [SEA] 72617,1167 (X) >"I have concluded from extensive analysis that portions of the >defendant's programs were substantially copied directly from >plaintiff's copyrighted source code." What portions were copied? Could it be that those portions were the public domain code for the compression routines? As I understand it, a settlement was reached before the merits of your claim to copyright infringement could be argued in court. Another part of the settlement was that Phil Katz admitted no wrong doing. Like most people who have been following this lawsuit, I have tried to keep an open mind and any judgement that I make I want to be based on facts. Unless I am wrong about the terms of the settlement, I would suggest that you defend your position as best you can based on proven facts. BTW, the terms of your "confidential" settlement is a matter of public record. Anyone who wants a copy may go down to the Federal Courthouse in Milwaukee and ask for a copy. There is 1 Reply. #: 211908 S9/Hot Topic [S] 14-Sep-88 07:19:34 Sb: #211868-#PK Response to SEA Fm: Don Gloistein 76010,474 To: Gary Nelson 73627,2203 (X) Gary, IANAL, but in disputes over intellectual property, it seems that confidential agreements are very common. (Look at Microsoft/Apple agreement). My problem is that both sides are doing finger pointing and loosing sight of what much of the bbs and computer community is worried about. They are denying something as common as a non-disclosure of terms. So people continue to cast the other in a bad light. They have won now, can collect some money, loose some money (depending on who you are referring to). But the end result, in my opinion is that something new from another direction will be forth coming. Unix people are probably laughing at us. They have had nice tools for quite awhile with complete source available. The fancyness is not in the comp/decomp but the interface. (I still don't think command lines are copyrightable.) --Don There is 1 Reply. #: 212056 S9/Hot Topic [S] 14-Sep-88 20:36:03 Sb: #211908-#PK Response to SEA Fm: Gary Nelson 73627,2203 To: Don Gloistein 76010,474 (X) --Don, First, what does "IANAL" stand for? I've not seen that one used before. Since there doesn't seem to be a whole lot of facts to go on, I'd like to add to the speculation taking place. Its been suggested that a public domain program compress/uncompress program be written with no strings attached. Its also been established that code exists that is in the public domain for using any number of different compression techniques. How hard can it be to use that code, create a new file specification, tack on a user interface and release it? I admit I'm probably over simplifying the process, but its a start. Gary There is 1 Reply. #: 212058 S9/Hot Topic [S] 14-Sep-88 20:43:27 Sb: #212056-PK Response to SEA Fm: Don Gloistein 76010,474 To: Gary Nelson 73627,2203 (X) Gary, IANAL == I am not a lawyer. Actually, you are quite correct. The biggest thing would be to get a set of source compatible for many operating systems. The basic specs for the archive and the compress/decompress would not be hard. On Unixforum, among some others are the C source for compress. In Library 0, mscomp.zoo is the source ported for MsDos world. You might want to look at that. The file comp16.exe also same lib, is the executable for 16 bit compression. It is not as fast as zoo or pk, but also saves more bytes. Of course, you pay a speed price to have it high level language (HLL) compatible. And even as written it beats SEA in time and compression. You can use something like that and do the assembler tweaking to get the speed up. (or down). Don't go whole hog on a project though. I have seen a lot of threads about this idea. My guess is that soon you will hear about it being a project and probably could join in. Save you a lot of coding. --Don/ex { #: 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 There is 1 Reply. #: 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. There are 2 Replies. #: 212282 S9/Hot Topic [S] 15-Sep-88 16:29:40 Sb: #212227-#PK Response to SEA Fm: Dave Hoagland 70007,3352 To: Andrew Foray [SEA] 72617,1167 (X) Andrew...In Message #212134, Phil disputes your claim that he admitted to stealing SEA's source code. He has asked you specify what/where/when he made such an admission (so he can verify the court records) or to retract your statement. Do you intend to respond? ...DaveH There are 2 Replies. #: 212343 S9/Hot Topic [S] 15-Sep-88 20:39:23 Sb: #212282-PK Response to SEA Fm: Bob Tolz 70475,1071 To: Dave Hoagland 70007,3352 (X) Dave, Someone once accused me in writing of having forged some papers to obtain a benefit. The case against them for libel is pending in New York Supreme Court. Just an aside.... Bob #: 212368 S9/Hot Topic [S] 15-Sep-88 22:46:54 Sb: #212282-#PK Response to SEA Fm: Alan Rowberg 76703,4421 To: Dave Hoagland 70007,3352 (X) Apparently he does not intend to respond. Maybe it has occurred to him be may end up on the receiving end of a libel suit? There is 1 Reply. #: 212438 S9/Hot Topic [S] 16-Sep-88 08:54:23 Sb: #212368-#PK Response to SEA Fm: Bob Tolz 70475,1071 To: Alan Rowberg 76703,4421 (X) Alan, It doesn't matter whether he responds or not. He's already libeled Katz. Truth is a defense, of course, but Katz says the statement by Foray is not true. An apology does not remove the libel, but it can be considered by a jury in determining the extent of damages which are payable. Take it from one who knows the area well. Bo There is 1 Reply. #: 212652 S9/Hot Topic [S] 17-Sep-88 00:49:47 Sb: #212438-PK Response to SEA Fm: John Wilson 76414,624 To: Bob Tolz 70475,1071 Bob, just a theoretical aside and question about "expert" witnesses. I've witnessed a trial, a few years back, where one composer accused another of stealing his work. A counter suit was launched and the battle joined by expert witnesses, composed largely of Phd's in music. The upshot of this short tale is that each sides witnesses disagreed, naturally, but the two called by the court couldn't even agree. Just how much value is put on this kind of thing? (The reason I used this example is that music, like programming, involves a degree of coding and it was the "coding" [arragements] that were under attack.) jrw #: 212669 S9/Hot Topic [S] 17-Sep-88 06:11:26 Sb: #212227-PK Response to SEA Fm: Don Gloistein 76010,474 To: Andrew Foray [SEA] 72617,1167 Andrew, I have read the statements in policy.sea, and it got to me even more than before. Your company's big justification is to keep the archive standard pure, upto date,etc. You claim the interest of serving the needs fo the bbs community and supporting the Shareware concept. Your pledge includes "contiue to upgrade ARC for speed and efficiency." The speed came with pkarc, I have not seen an upgrade in years of SEA, the efficiency and ease of use came with a few interface programs Arcmaster, Sharc and Narc are the ones that come to mind. Furthermore, pledging to foster ingenuity and creativity in fellow programmers. I should hope so. The talk of copying the arc interface was so much hogwash. What is there to copy? command options archive_name files... What output to copy, archive and messages to the console. Straight text. VERY creative. Thank you for the permission to distribute ARC, but it isn't needed as I haven't had a copy for years. re: use of the ARC trademark. If I grant you that an application is the same as a trademark, yours is the only company that has the requirement of giving you my source code and profits. In reading your policy, it can be construed that if I write a program with the pd algorithms writing to the pd file format, and mention ARC in the documentation, I must give you my code. Real nice for you all. But I don't give away my property because someone tells me to. HOW can you reply in my message saying you do not hold the copyright to the file format, yet REQUIRE me to do anything. re:protecting your trademark. That only applies to going after people who use it. Nothing in the law requires you to have my source code. For Your Information, you really don't have to worry about that. I am using Vern's programs to maintain archives that I will upload to CIS as long as the forums require ARC format. On my system and bbs, Zoo, or any other standard will be my choice. So you can protect to your hearts content. --Don #: 211928 S9/Hot Topic [S] 14-Sep-88 09:23:59 Sb: #211769-PK Response to SEA Fm: Alan Rowberg 76703,4421 To: Andrew Foray [SEA] 72617,1167 (X) I wonder if the expert witness would have know if both were copies from earlier souce code? #: 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> There is 1 Reply. #: 212360 S9/Hot Topic [S] 15-Sep-88 22:18:46 Sb: #212134-PK Response to SEA Fm: JOHN BOYD 75076,2466 To: Phil Katz 72321,3367 Phil, glad to see you made it here. I don't know what program you are using right now for CIS, but I recommend you check the Tapcis forum and try Tapcis with Tapmark. These really help following messages on CIS. The other major alternative is ATO which is in IBMCOM. Tapcis is $79 shareware and ATO is free. #: 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. There is 1 Reply. #: 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 There is 1 Reply. #: 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 ? There are 2 Replies. #: 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. #: 212121 S9/Hot Topic [S] 14-Sep-88 22:58:26 Sb: #211819-#PK settlement details Fm: Tom Neff 76556,2536 To: Andrew Foray [SEA] 72617,1167 (X) Let me give you an honest answer to your final question, and remember that I have been upholding your side of things to some extent in the thread so far. A generous portion of ARC's success is owed outright to the optimized assembly language clones that followed on ARC.EXE's original release. You saddled yourself with a pig of an I/O runtime from Computer Innovations and were tardy in jumping ship to the later generation of C compilers that might have offered an improvement. These other guys came along, studied your code I admit (but surely you foresaw that when you published it!), and improved the performance. The software industry has traditionally had very little patience with the concept of "resting on your laurels," but SEA ARC's strategy has been the archetypal example of it. Now don't get me wrong, I know what you guys have against Phil and I think your suit was probably overdue. But don't get the idea you guys are heroes in this. Compared to what ARC.EXE could have been by now, it's still a dog. Why you would be content to concede superior performance to a tainted clone, then sue him out of existence and wait for a tickertape welcoming parade from the user community, is beyond my comprehension. In words of one syllable, *SPEED THE BLEEPING THING UP* and add some functionality for chrissake, and this whole thing will be forgotten by Valentine's Day. Otherwise you will have won the court case but lost in the forum of public opinion. There is 1 Reply. #: 212556 S9/Hot Topic [S] 16-Sep-88 19:50:50 Sb: #212121-PK settlement details Fm: rick segal 76276,2706 To: Tom Neff 76556,2536 (X) Nice thoughts!! Really, good! Press ! #: 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 There are 3 Replies. #: 211797 S9/Hot Topic [S] 13-Sep-88 20:16:01 Sb: #211781-stop SEA? Fm: Tom Neff 76556,2536 To: Basil Copeland/CRC 74240,1161 (X) It's all yours, buddy. :-) #: 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 There are 3 Replies. #: 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 There is 1 Reply. #: 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 There is 1 Reply. #: 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? There are 2 Replies. #: 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 There is 1 Reply. #: 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. There is 1 Reply. #: 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. There are 2 Replies. #: 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> There are 2 Replies. #: 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?????! :-) There is 1 Reply. #: 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 #: 212153 S9/Hot Topic [S] 15-Sep-88 01:11:20 Sb: #212112-#stop SEA? Fm: Alan Rowberg 76703,4421 To: Tom Neff 76556,2536 (X) Hey, I live in Bellevue. Will you send your next check to me? There is 1 Reply. #: 212200 S9/Hot Topic [S] 15-Sep-88 08:57:08 Sb: #212153-stop SEA? Fm: Tom Neff 76556,2536 To: Alan Rowberg 76703,4421 (X) No sweat Alan -- just specify India or neoprene. :-) #: 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 There is 1 Reply. #: 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 There is 1 Reply. #: 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. There are 2 Replies. #: 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 There is 1 Reply. #: 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 #: 212667 S9/Hot Topic [S] 17-Sep-88 04:13:55 Sb: #212264-stop SEA? Fm: John Deakin 74015,1624 To: Bob Tolz 70475,1071 Mike Rubenstein 70205,1144 is active on CIS. GO BPROGB, Turbo C Section. #: 212055 S9/Hot Topic [S] 14-Sep-88 20:28:57 Sb: #ARC used in 1984 Fm: Paul Mayer (GRAB Plus) 70040,645 To: Bob Tolz 70475,1071 (X) Bob; I have been sorting and searching through old dusty DIRTY disks looking for old files that used ARC in the file extensions. Well on some old C86 compiler disks I found a lot of ????????.ARC files dated April 1984. With SEA saying that they started using the term ARC in their TM application in March of 1985? Well I leave the rest of this thought to you. - Paul There are 2 Replies. #: 212123 S9/Hot Topic [S] 14-Sep-88 23:06:36 Sb: #212055-#ARC used in 1984 Fm: Phil Katz 72321,3367 To: Paul Mayer (GRAB Plus) 70040,645 (X) Paul, >Bob; I have been sorting and searching through old dusty DIRTY disks >looking for old files that used ARC in the file extensions. Well on >some old C86 compiler disks I found a lot of ????????.ARC files dated >April 1984. With SEA saying that they started using the term ARC in >their TM application in March of 1985? Well I leave the rest of this >thought to you. - Paul Gee, didn't SEA use the Computer Innovations C86 compiler when writing ARC? >Phil> There are 3 Replies. #: 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). There is 1 Reply. #: 212551 S9/Hot Topic [S] 16-Sep-88 19:25:04 Sb: #212447-ARC used in 1984 Fm: Barry Simon 76004,1664 To: Mike Davenport 76676,1362 Er, I was just checking in the bible and I found lots of references to the SEA(tm) and the ARC of the Coventant. - Barry ;-) #: 212168 S9/Hot Topic [S] 15-Sep-88 05:48:41 Sb: #212055-#ARC used in 1984 Fm: Bob Tolz 70475,1071 To: Paul Mayer (GRAB Plus) 70040,645 (X) Obviously they didn't have first use as a file extension. They may indeed have first use as a program name. It wouldn't bother me if they got a trademark limited to its use as the program name so long as the trademark was limited in that way; i.e., so that it did not extend to file format, using the ARC extension, using "arc" as a verb or adjective (e.g., arc-ing a file), etc. There is 1 Reply. #: 212191 S9/Hot Topic [S] 15-Sep-88 08:10:21 Sb: #212168-ARC used in 1984 Fm: Paul Mayer (GRAB Plus) 70040,645 To: Bob Tolz 70475,1071 (X) Bob; That is the point Phil's system was PKARC not ARC and the file extensions shold not matter worth anything. I am sure if I could find someone with an 8 inch CP/M machine I can find files that used the ARC extension even further back. I just received a message from Phil on this forum also so maybe we will now hear it from the horses mouth! Glad he made it! - Paul #: 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 There are 4 Replies. #: 212089 S9/Hot Topic [S] 14-Sep-88 21:47:41 Sb: #212079-SEA/PK Out of Control Fm: SysOp Don Watkins 76703,750 To: Steve Stern 70327,135 (X) Steve - Sounds like a plan to me! Let's see what we can do about it. #: 212136 S9/Hot Topic [S] 14-Sep-88 23:31:54 Sb: #212079-SEA/PK Out of Control Fm: Phil Katz 72321,3367 To: Steve Stern 70327,135 (X) Steve, Amen! >Phil> #: 212142 S9/Hot Topic [S] 14-Sep-88 23:45:43 Sb: #212079-#SEA/PK Out of Control Fm: Tom Neff 76556,2536 To: Steve Stern 70327,135 (X) Your conference suggestions are interesting, but the rest of your prescription stinks. This is a discussion forum. It's presumptuous to claim that several weeks of threads have "accomplished nothing." I am sure that hundreds or thousands of users have been exposed to this controversy in detail for the first time. If only a few of them learned something, then our threads have been well worth it. I am so sorry if we have wasted your valuable time in the interim. There is 1 Reply. #: 212581 S9/Hot Topic [S] 16-Sep-88 21:48:06 Sb: #212142-#SEA/PK Out of Control Fm: Steve Stern 70327,135 To: Tom Neff 76556,2536 (X) Tom: I'm not saying my time was wasted... After all, I choose to pay to download the threads, knowing exactly how long they were beforehand. However, the emotional content of this controversy has always been higher than the factual content. This is not necessarily the fault of the members of the forum (after all, it wasn't OUR choice to keep the agreement quiet). I'm merely calling for a discussion of facts and a greater focus on where things are going instead of where they've been. And, I would like to have some precedents set about this stuff... maybe someone who feels strongly enough will be willing to fight the case. So, please don't feel sorry for me. I'm doing fine. Steve There is 1 Reply. #: 212609 S9/Hot Topic [S] 16-Sep-88 23:20:00 Sb: #212581-#SEA/PK Out of Control Fm: Tom Neff 76556,2536 To: Steve Stern 70327,135 I think that if anyone is seriously (and foolishly?) interested in sticking their own third party nose into the legalities of this thing, they would be well advised to shut the hell up in this and similar forums, and stick to the lawyering. 'Taint glamorous, but that's life in the big leagues. Now as for the non-litigant rest of us, there is plenty of room in a discussion forum like IBMSW for both high-octane personal opinions, and cold hard facts. I respect your preference for the latter, just as I respect the preferences of those equally worthy members who like a good knock-down drag-out over topical issues like this one. If you feel there is too much opinion and not enough fact in the current debate, perhaps it would be more constructive on your part to join in not with ANOTHER opinion (or meta-opinion so to speak), but with some facts of your own. Set a good example as it were. Just a thought... There is 1 Reply. #: 212737 S9/Hot Topic [S] 17-Sep-88 14:45:26 Sb: #212609-#SEA/PK Out of Control Fm: Roger Schlafly 76067,511 To: Tom Neff 76556,2536 (X) Tom, If you wish to shut up regarding the legal issues, that's fine, but don't tell others to shut up. Some of use have opinions. You don't have to read them if you don't want to. Roger There is 1 Reply. #: 212900 S9/Hot Topic [S] 18-Sep-88 11:50:06 Sb: #212737-SEA/PK Out of Control Fm: Tom Neff 76556,2536 To: Roger Schlafly 76067,511 I'm not telling anyone present to shut up that I'm aware of. I suggested that anyone who wanted to jump in the legal water with SEA and PK would be prudent to keep quiet here. I never knew you were volunteering, are you? #: 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 There are 2 Replies. #: 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. There are 3 Replies. #: 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 There is 1 Reply. #: 212670 S9/Hot Topic [S] 17-Sep-88 06:11:31 Sb: #212252-#SEA/PK Out of Control Fm: Don Gloistein 76010,474 To: Roger Schlafly 76067,511 (X) Roger, You don't have to worry. Now that SEA has some fast code, THEY can "continue" to release timely updates and enhancements as they have in the past. --Don There is 1 Reply. #: 212739 S9/Hot Topic [S] 17-Sep-88 14:46:25 Sb: #212670-SEA/PK Out of Control Fm: Roger Schlafly 76067,511 To: Don Gloistein 76010,474 (X) Don, I think you misunderstood me. I was commenting on Foray's statement: "The BBS users can decide between ARC and PKARC." Personally, I have no interest in using SEA programs. Roger #: 212260 S9/Hot Topic [S] 15-Sep-88 13:42:44 Sb: #212238-SEA/PK Out of Control Fm: Roger Schlafly 76067,511 To: Andrew Foray [SEA] 72617,1167 (X) Andrew, I sent the previous message before downloading POLICY.SEA. I see now that you have reversed your policy in several areas. I believe my comments about legally untenable SEA positions were valid before 9-13-88. Your new policy is a big improvement. 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. There are 3 Replies. #: 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. There is 1 Reply. #: 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... There are 2 Replies. #: 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 There is 1 Reply. #: 212571 S9/Hot Topic [S] 16-Sep-88 20:59:40 Sb: #212554-#SEA/PK Out of Control Fm: Harvey Nehgila 70655,114 To: rick segal 76276,2706 (X) He's currently holding forth on the same subject on BIX. Perhaps Andy drew the short straw? ;-) #: 212657 S9/Hot Topic [S] 17-Sep-88 01:13:52 Sb: #212524-#SEA/PK Out of Control Fm: Mike Dingacci 74206,1747 To: Andrew Foray [SEA] 72617,1167 Perhaps I was a bit strong and/or hasty in my comments and, if so, I am heartily sorry. I like to think of myself as a civilized human. My view of "civilized" is also what makes me abhor using the courts as a vehicle for airing problems such as this. Both sides in any legal case always seem to have the immutable opinion that they are right and the other side is wrong. Each side brings out its hired legal guns and the shooting commences. There seems to be no middle ground. Yet, in looking over your comments and those of Phil Katz here and elsewhere, it would seem that BOTH sides of this argument leave some room for negotiation. Why is a REASONABLE compromise which would benefit both the users and the litigants such a difficult thing to come upon in this case? My hypothetical question to you would be: What would PK have needed to do in order to satisfy your "licensing" policy and why can't that be done retroactively in order to put all this behind you now? By this point I would think that both sides are sick to death of this whole mess. If you are simply trying to make a legal point, it seems to be costing you dearly. This issue will probably remain poorly resolved and the public images of both combatants will remain bloodied beyond repair. It's a shame. As for comparing ARC source with PK 3.5 source, I am not privy to either. I was not aware that the PK 3.5 source was ever released. There is 1 Reply. #: 212671 S9/Hot Topic [S] 17-Sep-88 06:11:36 Sb: #212657-SEA/PK Out of Control Fm: Don Gloistein 76010,474 To: Mike Dingacci 74206,1747 (X) Mike, Be grateful for not being privey. It is more difficult to prove copying if you never had access. --Don #: 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. There is 1 Reply. #: 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. There are 3 Replies. #: 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 There is 1 Reply. #: 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. There are 3 Replies. #: 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. There are 2 Replies. #: 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. There are 5 Replies. #: 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 There is 1 Reply. #: 212676 S9/Hot Topic [S] 17-Sep-88 06:12:14 Sb: #212270-POLICY.SEA Fm: Don Gloistein 76010,474 To: Bob Tolz 70475,1071 Bob, Aw! You are talking like a lawyer again. --Don #: 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 There is 1 Reply. #: 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) There is 1 Reply. #: 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 There are 3 Replies. #: 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 There is 1 Reply. #: 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 There is 1 Reply. #: 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. There are 2 Replies. #: 212487 S9/Hot Topic [S] 16-Sep-88 13:18:57 Sb: #212334-#POLICY.SEA Fm: Barry Simon 76004,1664 To: Bob Tolz 70475,1071 (X) Er, I thought that White Crane had a trademark on the Brooklyn Bridge. - Barry There is 1 Reply. #: 212531 S9/Hot Topic [S] 16-Sep-88 16:49:36 Sb: #212487-#POLICY.SEA Fm: Bob Tolz 70475,1071 To: Barry Simon 76004,1664 (X) I can always tell that you're telling a joke when you start a message with "Er". There is 1 Reply. #: 212548 S9/Hot Topic [S] 16-Sep-88 19:24:52 Sb: #212531-POLICY.SEA Fm: Barry Simon 76004,1664 To: Bob Tolz 70475,1071 Er, such messages can sometimes be deadly serious. - Barry #: 212560 S9/Hot Topic [S] 16-Sep-88 19:51:13 Sb: #212334-POLICY.SEA Fm: rick segal 76276,2706 To: Bob Tolz 70475,1071 Umm.. Bob, I hate ta do this to ya bud, but I gotta sue ya. I granted that Bridge license three months ago along with rights to move it should one provide me a chemical breakdown of SPAM. I making a fortune here, Bob, so you understand, right? See ya in court or Disneyworld!! :) Rick #: 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. There is 1 Reply. #: 212575 S9/Hot Topic [S] 16-Sep-88 21:33:10 Sb: #212442-POLICY.SEA Fm: Jim McKeown 74666,511 To: John Love 73537,3145 I guess we just have to disagree then, John. You're not convincing me, and I'm not convincing you. jcm #: 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 There is 1 Reply. #: 212706 S9/Hot Topic [S] 17-Sep-88 11:37:00 Sb: #212656-POLICY.SEA Fm: Jim McKeown 74666,511 To: John Wilson 76414,624 I've already been through that argument once with someone else, John. Neither of us convinced the other so we just stayed disagreeing. jcm #: 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. #: 212646 S9/Hot Topic [S] 17-Sep-88 00:46:55 Sb: PK settlement details Fm: John Wilson 76414,624 To: Paul Watson 76056,1751 No offense taken! One of the few things I envy about the mac is the nice long file names one can use. That and the garbage can. (grin) (End of my comments on this subject, agreeing completely.) jrw #: 212651 S9/Hot Topic [S] 17-Sep-88 00:49:21 Sb: PK settlement details Fm: John Wilson 76414,624 To: Andrew Foray [SEA] 72617,1167 Sorry, but it appears that you already have removed one source, while resolutly refusing to upgrade your own to meet the challenge, in terms of speed and size. I can understand your attempting to avoid the fate of trademarks like Aspirin and Jello, I just happen to think you're a little late. As for the notion of sending commented source code to a potential rival, aren't you asking a bit much? ttfn jrw #: 212651 S9/Hot Topic [S] 17-Sep-88 00:49:21 Sb: PK settlement details Fm: John Wilson 76414,624 To: Andrew Foray [SEA] 72617,1167 Sorry, but it appears that you already have removed one source, while resolutly refusing to upgrade your own to meet the challenge, in terms of speed and size. I can understand your attempting to avoid the fate of trademarks like Aspirin and Jello, I just happen to think you're a little late. As for the notion of sending commented source code to a potential rival, aren't you asking a bit much? ttfn jrw #: 212659 S9/Hot Topic [S] 17-Sep-88 01:29:37 Sb: #ARC standard? Fm: John Bridges 73307,606 To: All Does the current version of ARC unARC any .ARC file (including files made with PKARC). I don't think so, but ARCE and PKXARC and PKUNPAK as well as other utilities do handle ANY .ARC file. So which program would you use to unARC your .ARC files??? hmmm, I thought so, so even if ARC becomes as fast as it's competitors (with as many features), unless it unARC's ANY ARC file it will NEVER become the standard for unARCing. In fact I believe recent copies of ARC recognize the PKARC compression with some nasty description but will not unARC them. There is 1 Reply. #: 212714 S9/Hot Topic [S] 17-Sep-88 12:09:47 Sb: #212659-ARC standard? Fm: Tom Neff 76556,2536 To: John Bridges 73307,606 (X) John, I believe ARC 5.22 will handle squashing OK. I don't think it will squash new members for you but I am not entirely sure. Also ARCE 3.1b and later versions will extract squashed ARC members.