Who would prevail? - Rybka or cloners?

[Hagen]

I'm curious to see if this ever gets to court. Would Rybka developers be able to get a court injunction to prevent ISPs from allowing their servers to host websites that allow people to get the alleged clones? To do this I'm guessing there'd have to be a case brought in by Rybka's developers to prove their contention that the clones are illegally obtained versions of Rybka code.

Would a judge be able to make the distinction between Rybka getting "ideas" from other engines and engines using code snippets from other engines? In other words would a judge be able to distinguish between what a "clone" is and what a "derivative" is?

In my opinion such a case could have wide ranging impact on the term "clone" and what constitutes as an "original" chess engine. It could even impact the development of open source code. Any thoughts on this?

[Sean Evans]

I'm curious to see if this ever gets to court. Would Rybka developers be able to get a court injunction to prevent ISPs from allowing their servers to host websites that allow people to get the alleged clones? To do this I'm guessing there'd have to be a case brought in by Rybka's developers to prove their contention that the clones are illegally obtained versions of Rybka code.

Would a judge be able to make the distinction between Rybka getting "ideas" from other engines and engines using code snippets from other engines? In other words would a judge be able to distinguish between what a "clone" is and what a "derivative" is?

In my opinion such a case could have wide ranging impact on the term "clone" and what constitutes as an "original" chess engine. It could even impact the development of open source code. Any thoughts on this?

First the evidence of a Rybka clone would have to be produced, as of now none has come forward. In addition, if Rybka is a derivative can it actually claim a copyright?

Cordially,

Sean

[notyetagm]

I'm curious to see if this ever gets to court. Would Rybka developers be able to get a court injunction to prevent ISPs from allowing their servers to host websites that allow people to get the alleged clones? To do this I'm guessing there'd have to be a case brought in by Rybka's developers to prove their contention that the clones are illegally obtained versions of Rybka code.

Would a judge be able to make the distinction between Rybka getting "ideas" from other engines and engines using code snippets from other engines? In other words would a judge be able to distinguish between what a "clone" is and what a "derivative" is?

In my opinion such a case could have wide ranging impact on the term "clone" and what constitutes as an "original" chess engine. It could even impact the development of open source code. Any thoughts on this?

First the evidence of a Rybka clone would have to be produced, as of now none has come forward. In addition, if Rybka is a derivative can it actually claim a copyright?

Cordially,

Sean

Yep, the Rybka fanboys love to ignore the FRUIT CONNECTION for some reason or another.

[Ristaaf]

Probably also depends on in which country this was tried. Even if it was proven that IPPO family is "cloned" from Rybka by reverse engineering the excecutables, that would not be enough everywhere since this is not considered illegal everywhere (but maybee moraly incorrect).

[BB+]

I'm curious to see if this ever gets to court

My general impression is that court cases are not generally decided on facts per se but on which side has the spendiest lawyers to confabulate the issue.

Would a judge be able to make the distinction between Rybka getting "ideas" from other engines and engines using code snippets from other engines? In other words would a judge be able to distinguish between what a "clone" is and what a "derivative" is?

For most judges, they would just go on what "expert testimony" had been procured. There are typically rules of evidence in court cases, but that doesn't come close to ensuring any rationality in the result. I remember some guy in Calgary telling me a few years back that "half a million minimum" was needed to defend intellectual property cases. Likely more with the inevitable appeals. Better to have to whole thing endlessly hashed around in the kangaroo courts of the Internet, and then claim that there was never a legal verdict against one's opinion.

[Charles]

If that report released is accurate mostly likely the cloners unless Vas or someone else can come up with a convincing document / argument proving otherwise.
Nonetheless, it is looking like ippolit is a derivative from Rybka even if legal .

Vas deserves credit for the ingenuity of the Rybka series. The cloners built on his success and still have not come up with that great of a product (that is bug free and reliable)
Rybka 4 is a lot more interesting then the numerous tiny incremental changes in ippolit.

[notyetagm]

If that report released is accurate mostly likely the cloners unless Vas or someone else can come up with a convincing document / argument proving otherwise.
Nonetheless, it is looking like ippolit is a derivative from Rybka even if legal .

Vas deserves credit for the ingenuity of the Rybka series. The cloners built on his success and still have not come up with that great of a product (that is bug free and reliable)
Rybka 4 is a lot more interesting then the numerous tiny incremental changes in ippolit.

And Vas built on the success of Fruit.

[Peter C]

If that report released is accurate mostly likely the cloners unless Vas or someone else can come up with a convincing document / argument proving otherwise.
Nonetheless, it is looking like ippolit is a derivative from Rybka even if legal .

Vas deserves credit for the ingenuity of the Rybka series. The cloners built on his success and still have not come up with that great of a product (that is bug free and reliable)
Rybka 4 is a lot more interesting then the numerous tiny incremental changes in ippolit.

FWIW, they are fewer bugs in the latest IvanHoe than in Rybka (3 or 4)....

Peter

[Hood]

I'm curious to see if this ever gets to court. Would Rybka developers be able to get a court injunction to prevent ISPs from allowing their servers to host websites that allow people to get the alleged clones? To do this I'm guessing there'd have to be a case brought in by Rybka's developers to prove their contention that the clones are illegally obtained versions of Rybka code.

Would a judge be able to make the distinction between Rybka getting "ideas" from other engines and engines using code snippets from other engines? In other words would a judge be able to distinguish between what a "clone" is and what a "derivative" is?

Rybka might be clone, either


In my opinion such a case could have wide ranging impact on the term "clone" and what constitutes as an "original" chess engine. It could even impact the development of open source code. Any thoughts on this?

[Drog1966]

at the end of the day rybka is a consumer product on the market for sale.where do copyright laws come into this, am i led to believe the workings of a chess engine cant be copyrighted,maybe this clone issue hasn't fell on the right desk yet, because from where I'm sitting cloning someone else's product/design is illegal