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 <grin>.

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

<loud applause>

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? <grin>

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 <grin>.

                                               -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... <grin>

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 <grin>.

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! <grin>) 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 <grin>!  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. <grin>

No, the driving force for my side in this thread is solely my personal
wellspring of cantankerousness.  Ask anyone. <regrin>

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. <grin> 
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 <grin>). 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.... <grin> 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. <grin>

#: 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...   <and on, and on, and on...>

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. <grin>
- 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. <grin>  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. <grin>

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. <grin>  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<grin>).  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.

<flame on>

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.

<flame off>

--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,

<flame on>

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)

<loud clapping>

Nice thoughts!!  Really, good!

Press <CR> !


#: 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. <flame,flame>

--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. <flame,flame>

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