Robodini

[BB+]

these values were obtained by RE-ing, not by "observation"

I would prefer to say "were obtained by decompiling", so that there is no confusion in what type of RE was used. Note that the EU document nowhere has the phrase "reverse engineering", again to avoid confusion. Furthermore, "observation" does not (to my mind) exclude observation of the internal workings of the program (via something like a virtual machine, as I indicated), nor does it exclude the automatic collection of data from such observation. [However, the license of a program could presumably restrict the manner in which the user may permissibly run the program].

didn't those guys who decompiled large chunks of Rybka 1.0 & 2.3.2a & 3 code violate the law in the same way?

It depends on the laws (and interpretation therein) in the relevant jurisdiction. For R1: ZW and Rick Fadden live in the US, while Osipov is seemingly from the Russian Federation. Schröder is Dutch, but claims to have VR's permission.

US case law is rather scattered about the matter, but I think Sega/Accolade still holds [at least in the 9th Circuit] as pertains the situational parameters of disassembly (which as I say, I consider akin to decompilation):

This case presents several difficult questions of first impression involving our copyright and trademark laws. We are asked to determine, first, whether the Copyright Act permits persons who are neither copyright holders nor licensees to disassemble a copyrighted computer program in order to gain an understanding of the unprotected functional elements of the program. In light of the public policies underlying the Act, we conclude that, when the person seeking the understanding has legitimate reason for doing so and when no other means of access to the unprotected elements exists, such disassembly is as a matter of law a fair use of the copyrighted work.

The "legitimate reason" clause should be read with respect to copyright law as a whole (e.g., educational purposes are probably permitted, commercial ones perhaps not).

Since the enquiry concerned Rybka, back in 2004, VR had this to say:

disassembling for purposes of finding information is legal and cannot be prevented.

It would be legal (though incredibly hard) for someone to disassemble one of the commercial programs and publish his findings.

[BB+]

The "legitimate reason" clause should be read with respect to copyright law as a whole (e.g., educational purposes are probably permitted, commercial ones perhaps not).
In this context, I should probably highlight this portion from the Sega/Accolade section (III.D.2.b, considering potential market effects of Accolade's actions):

Accolade did not attempt to “scoop” Sega’s release of any particular game or games, but sought only to become a legitimate competitor in the field of Genesis-compatible video games. Within that market, it is the characteristics of the game program as experienced by the user that determine the program’s commercial success. As we have noted, there is nothing in the record that suggests that Accolade copied any of those elements.

[BB+]

I can't say that I agree with what RV did, but the question of whether it was legal seems to be have been broached.
Perhaps I should be more clear and say that I was only considering the legality of the RE. The question of whether Robodini is "substantially similar" to Houdini 3, with the consequent copyright and distribution issues, I assume can only be answered after making an analysis of the two programs.

However, RE can also be done by "observation" of a program [...]
[...] "observation" does not (to my mind) exclude observation of the internal workings of the program, nor does it exclude the automatic collection of data from such observation.
This seems to be inline with typical legal interpretations: the technological method used for the observation plays a secondary role in the matter. For instance, one would not typically demand an observation be made "with the bare eye" rather than through spectacles. One can also draw from criminal law, where police use dogs to sniff for bombs and drugs (similarly with heat detectors or spectrometers for marijuana growing), and these fall under "observation" in the legal sense. [The US Supreme Court in a 5-4 decision indicated that the device has to be "in general public use", or else such observation/surveillance would constitute a "search", while the dissent saw such a clause to be rather dubious].

[JcMaTe]

what RV did is to let us know ( with robodini ) is that he knows already how to beat houdini so I think Critter will be the stronger chess engine thats why Robert Houdart is crying well I dont know why he cries when he took advantage from other engine
just remember this " ladron que roba a ladron cien anos de perdon " " thief who robs thief hundred yeas or pardon"

[kingliveson]

Ed, thank you for your statement. He was making some empty threats and I am glad you called out his bluff.

What exactly should I be wanting to end? All this is forum gibberish, quite far removed from the reality of engine development and marketing.

Then what are you doing here ?

You have chosen to participate in a community who value honesty as a great good when it comes to engine origins. You have chosen to lie about the origin of Houdini. Your choice. Fine. But don't insult the forum members for having a problem with your dishonesty.

Honesty matters because you got the first 3000 elo for free and that in a competitive field of chess programmers who write their own stuff from the ground up. Naturally their question is deservedly, this is about COMPETITION and the right to know what they are competing.

If you don't like the conscience of this community go elsewhere.

What remains is the question why you've created a thread about a perceived but pretty much non-existing ethical problem, and not about the very real LEGAL problem that Richard's recent actions have created.

You are hypocritical now, it was me quoting EU law on which you greedily anticipated. Furthermore you are bluffing taking this to court, not worth the money and the stress involved. Furthermore Richard is quite popular and such an action will backfire on you. You are intelligent enough to realize this hence I call it a bluff on your end. Else the ChessBase folks will explain it to you how this wafer thin market segment works.

The whole thing reminds me of this: Man Calls Police to Report Stolen Marijuana Plant!

P.S. Jeremy, it would be nice to be able to embed videos.

[Rebel]

Thanks Franklin.

And no matter how hard I try I can not suppress the thought that if Robert had been open about Houdini's origin Richard's motivation to take the bet would have been somewhat less attractive

[Gerold]

what RV did is to let us know ( with robodini ) is that he knows already how to beat houdini so I think Critter will be the stronger chess engine thats why Robert Houdart is crying well I dont know why he cries when he took advantage from other engine
just remember this " ladron que roba a ladron cien anos de perdon " " thief who robs thief hundred yeas or pardon"

Robert may take court action. This would of course be a mistake . If he did Richard may give the code to other people and
there would be a lot more clones of Houdini.

[Prima]

what RV did is to let us know ( with robodini ) is that he knows already how to beat houdini so I think Critter will be the stronger chess engine thats why Robert Houdart is crying well I dont know why he cries when he took advantage from other engine
just remember this " ladron que roba a ladron cien anos de perdon " " thief who robs thief hundred yeas or pardon"

Robert may take court action. This would of course be a mistake . If he did Richard may give the code to other people and
there would be a lot more clones of Houdini.

You mean there will be a lot more clones of the Multiprocessor RobboLito

Apropos Robbodini by RV proving, yet AGAIN, the link between Houdini and RobboLito, I never thought of the other possibility of RV overtaking Houdini the way you put it. This indeed has to be that greedy pig's (Robert Houdart) worst nightmare

I say: Go Richard Vida! Thumps up & more power to Richard Vida!

Now regarding Robert Houdart taking action, this will be egregious on HIS part because there's the GPL RobboLito 0.085g3 he would have to answer to and WHY he breaks the laws continually with each Houdini release WITHOUT Houdini's source codes. Then of course, there's the penalty he has to face...

He did make a statement to the tune that "Talkchess is a goldmine of evidence relative to RE Houdini..." or something to that effect. He forgets that that SAME forum is also a goldmine against him for continually denying that Houdini is original - when in fact (1) Houdini started from a 3200+ ELO Public Domain code, as opposed to writing his code from scratch. So THAT alone shows he lied. Houdini is clearly not original. And (2); the evidences of Houdini's PV outputs, analysis, move-choice, ponder-hits, and even same RobboLito bugs to that of RobboLito 0.085g3 - all to which RH denied or claimed originality.

I guess in Robert Houdart's world, things are just one-sided or a one-way lane. I seriously want to see him take the so-call legal action; not because he will win. It's because I'm curious to read about his excuse for breaking a GPL code, in addition to his proven lies. And of course, watch him make a public jack-ass out of himself.

[Prima]

Self-correction/EDIT:

He did make a statement to the tune that "Talkchess is a goldmine of evidence relative to RE Houdini..." or something to that effect. He forgets that that SAME forum is also a goldmine against him for continually denying that Houdini is original.

I meant to say:

He forgets that that SAME forum is also a goldmine against him for continually denying that Houdini contains ANY foreign codes and emphasizing Houdini's originality.

[Vishywins]

what RV did is to let us know ( with robodini ) is that he knows already how to beat houdini so I think Critter will be the stronger chess engine thats why Robert Houdart is crying well I dont know why he cries when he took advantage from other engine
just remember this " ladron que roba a ladron cien anos de perdon " " thief who robs thief hundred yeas or pardon"

Robert may take court action. This would of course be a mistake . If he did Richard may give the code to other people and
there would be a lot more clones of Houdini.

maybe intended
more clones of houdini will make all other engines obsolete... houdinibouquet, houdinisaros, houdinivanhoe, houdinivitruvius all 100 elo stronger than stockfish and rybka
who would buy shredder, deep junior, hiarcs... ????
and houdart would be the only with a stronger engine (houdini 4)... laughing all the way to the bank