Indeed, their reports show that there are extensive differences between the two implementations, like Rybka's use of a bitboard. They argue that those changes are mechanical transformations of the Fruit implementation, and therefore not a new implementation of the uncopywriteable algorithms expressed in Fruit but a derivative work in the copyright sense. Lexmark International, Inc. v. Static Control Components, Inc. accepts that conversion of a function to lookup table, or rearranging terms in an expression are not by themselves original acts. However, the transformations in Rybka go well beyond mechanical changes at the call graph level.
They have instead gone up to a higher level of abstraction shown that the code in Fruit, with different input parameters than the Fruit defaults, can generate numbers which after post-processing match numbers used in Rybka. They have stated that the order of certain actions, where the order should be arbitrary, is consistent between the two programs.
While this was enough to convince the judges that Rybka contained unacknowledged algorithmic influence from Fruit in the fashion required by the rules, this argument is not sufficient to show copyright infringement. Here too the comparison method should be validated by applying it to other programs which use the same algorithmic approach as Fruit and which are known to not have a shared copyright history. The Rybka investigators have failed to do this.
Functional similarity by itself does not show copyright infringement. The clean room design model in programming is a well-understood method of using reverse engineering to create a new implementation which does not infringe on copyrights or trade secrets. One group of people reverse engineer the software and develop a design document which is reviewed by a lawyer to make sure that no copyrighted material is included. The document is passed to another group of people to implement, where the people in the second group were selected because they have no knowledge of the original implementation. An real-life example is OpenOffice, which is a clean-room implementation of Microsoft Word and is close enough in functionality that people can switch from one program to the other with little trouble.
Rybka was not developed as a clean-room reimplementation of Fruit, and the author has long acknowledged an intensive review of the Fruit source. The point here is only to show that functional similarity is not a clear indicator of copyright infringement.
Some may believe that reviewing the source code to Fruit means that Rybka is necessarily a derivative work. This is incorrect. A clean-room reimplementation makes it abundantly clear that there is no copyright infringement, but the lack of a clean-room style does not mean there is infringement.
One of the most widely used computer operating systems is Linux, which was greatly influenced by the MINIX operating system. MINIX was available in source form under a proprietary license, and there was a college textbook which described how it worked and included most of the source code. The Linux author studied MINIX and ran MINIX on his computer before developing Linux. The MINIX author stated clearly that Linux is not a derived work in the copyright sense, and no review of the Linux source code has ever shown copyright infringement to any other code, including MINUX.
Therefore, intensive review and study of the Fruit does not mean that Rybka infringes on the Fruit copyright just like an intensive review and study of MINIX does not mean that Linux infringes on the MINIX (or Unix) copyrights.
The Rybka investigators acknowledge that no individual piece of evidence is the proverbial smoking gun. Instead, the pattern of pieces reveals the infringement. The history of evidence synthesis like this is fraught with methodological problems. Quoting from http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Meta-analysis#Disadvantages_and_weaknesses:
The most severe weakness and abuse of meta-analysis often occurs when
the person or persons doing the meta-analysis have an economic, social,
or political agenda such as the passage or defeat of legislation. Those
persons with these types of agenda have a high likelihood to abuse
meta-analysis due to personal bias. For example, researchers favorable
to the author's agenda are likely to have their studies "cherry picked"
while those not favorable will be ignored or labeled as "not credible".
In addition, the favored authors may themselves be biased or paid to
produce results that support their overall political, social, or economic
goals in ways such as selecting small favorable data sets and not
incorporating larger unfavorable data sets.
There are ways to help offset these problems. For example, all comparison methods should be reported before doing the analysis, along with the definition of what "infringing" means for that case. Methods which fail to report similarity must be recorded. All participants must state possible sources of bias, and the method for selecting the participants must also be published.
This was not done. Of course, if there was strong evidence for copyright infringement then a careful synthesis of the evidence would not be needed, but that was not the case here. Instead, the results seem very much cherry-picked.
It may very well be that Rybka contains copyright infringing code. It's possible, after all, that 27 lines out of 525,000 are enough to make a substantial copyright infringement claim. The problem is that the methodology of the Rybka investigators is not strong enough to be convincing.
They claim to use the abstraction-filtration-comparison test to determine substantial similarity, but without the appropriate filtration. At each of the structural levels they fail to show that the discovery methods are not producing false positives, and they fail to demonstrate that the similarity level is greater than would be expected from a non-infringing chess program implementing the idea at the same structural level.
The similarity between Fruit and Rybka is strongest at the highest level of the analysis, but the abstraction-filtration-comparison test acknowledges that at a high enough level there's no copyright protection. This is due to the merger doctrine.
The document http://www.top-5000.nl/ZW_Rybka_Fruit.pdf is highly misleading. Without a mapping from the C structures based to disassembled code, it's impossible to judge the correctness of what the author writes. With a translation directly into idiomatic Fruit code, the visual similarities are overly distracting from the actual comparison, which is on a level that isn't show.
(You saw in my first email that just because someone reports what the code says, it doesn't mean that that's what the code actually does.)
Copyright law already acknowledges that at higher levels there's no copyright infringement because it's different expressions of a common idea. Hence the statement "high-level functionality is always equivalent in these cases" is meaningless unless it's established that this level is not high enough.
> something that could easily be shown to have damaged his reputation and damaged him financially.
But he appears in an interview saying that the opposite happened, with the media attention that he got his sales multiplied by 4.
Financially, they made him a favor, many people didn't even know about Rybka, and after they knew, they bought it.
Stop with the nonsense already...
Majd Ansari: "Here, you all are lawyers. Are you familiar with the relevant case law for this?"
Lawyers: "Okay, let's have a look. Somewhat familiar, but let's take this to the relevant department where we have the specialists."
Specialists to Majd's lawyers: "Yes, we have plenty of precedents for stuff like that, and the ICGA really went beyond simply attempting to enforce their own rules here. Some of them could probably be sued for libel and have to cough up a lot of cash."
Lawyers to Majd: "Our specialists took a look at this, and from their experience, found that Vas could win a libel suit against Levy and some others."
The report is open to interpretation- and can only offer a "What if " scenario- with hypothetical assertions. The ICGA report is lacking in the kind of substance that would warrant actions such as -
Publicizing, wheresoever it deems appropriate, the allegations and the names of those who have been investigated by the Panel and the findings of the Panel;
This action may well turn out to be libelous.
The entity that is qualified to request an investigation is the FSF, and I have always said that I would stand by whatever ruling that comes out of that. The FSF seems to be very quiet about all of this although they have been contacted and asked to get involved. I have yet to see the FSF get involved and that can only be because they are convinced of the folly of this entire episode.
> That action was obviously wrong and misguided and opens the door wide open for a defamation law suit.
The ICGA attempted to show they are the World authority on computer chess matters and hoped that everyone would see them as such. The way they handled the event highlighted why they should never be considered for that role.
> The ICGA attempted to show they are the World authority on computer chess matters and hoped that everyone would see them as such.
Correct, they went far beyond the remit of simply compliance with their Rule 2.
> Specialists to Majd's lawyers: "Yes, we have plenty of precedents for stuff like that, and the ICGA really went beyond simply attempting to enforce their own rules here. Some of them could probably be sued for libel and have to cough up a lot of cash."
> Lawyers to Majd: "Our specialists took a look at this, and from their experience, found that Vas could win a libel suit against Levy and some others."
and probably also said, " send him to us!".
It the same method that you always use...as in we the people.
Mr. Ansari is in the construction business and almost certainly deals with in-house and out-of-house council on a very regular basis. These guys need to keep Mr. Ansari happy, and if answering a few simple questions about an unrelated legal matter will do the trick, they will be happy to do so. Pro bono? Of course, since I'm sure they are paid quite well for their council on legal matters related to Mr. Ansari's construction business. There is nothing out of the ordinary here.
If you want more detailed information on this matter, try libeling Mr. Ansari directly, and see how that works out for you.
Somehow the probability of that seems incredibly small...
We are not having "any problems" whatsoever, for the record...
> If you mean "did we have an attorney look at the evidence and report, no we did not. Why would we.
Once Levy decided to get the general media involved, he was changing the game--it's not about enforcing the rules of a private organization anymore. From your end, I agree, there would be no reason to do so--but Levy is in a very different situation.
> Once Levy decided to get the general media involved, he was changing the game--it's not about enforcing the rules of a private organization anymore.
Yes, that was another particularly unsavoury aspect of this.
> ... at the cost of a financial loss to Vas's commercial product.
I doubt there was a financial loss, though. Even Vas said there was a spike in Rybka sales after the ICGA report came out.
>> I doubt there was a financial loss, though. Even Vas said there was a spike in Rybka sales after the ICGA report came out
Rybka 4, yes, but what about future sales of new versions and products ?
"The ICGA is a non-profit organisation and as such we have no obligation to register anywhere for tax or legal purposes."
That surprised me as I thought that even not-for-profit organizations had to register somewhere in the UK. Do you know if that's the same as in Germany? Our chancellor George Osborne is desperate to fund his 81 billion in cuts from simply anywhere
(BTW earlier Alan called you a neurologist, I think you're still an oncologist right?)
>Our chancellor George Osborne is desperate to fund his 81 billion in cuts from simply anywhere
He'll especially like this statement: 'on all our invoices we state that no VAT is payable'
>BTW earlier Alan called you a neurologist, I think you're still an oncologist right?
Right. Maybe Alan took one of my comments about dementia too seriously.
Chessbase: Tell us a little more about the ICGA: in what jurisdiction is it registered, where does it make its tax returns and who is legally and financially responsible for the organisation?
David Levy: I do not see what connection this has with the Rybka scandal but I am happy to answer the question anyway. The ICGA is a non-profit organisation and as such we have no obligation to register anywhere for tax or legal purposes. We do not make tax returns, and on all our invoices we state that no VAT is payable [For the benefit of readers outside Europe, VAT is a type of sales tax imposed on many goods and services in many European countries.]
As I have stated earlier in this interview, the question about who is legally and financially responsible for the organisation comes under Article III Section 1 of the ICGA Constitution, which is always published in the ICGA Journal prior to the tri-ennial meeting at which ICGA office bearers are elected. Section 1 states that the Executive Committee of the ICGA is charged with the administrative affairs of the association.
I find this a little strange. I am not an expert in company law, but I have some experience in running businesses with all the resulting obligations. I'm not aware that one can self-declare as a "non-profit organisation" and then "have no obligation to register anywhere for tax or legal purposes"!! The ICGA (formerly ICCA) has been running now for about thirty years. It organises tournaments and other events, it solicits payments from programmers, software houses and manufacturers to enter those events, and it solicits payments from "sponsors" for association with those events, it does this on a year on year basis and raises "invoices". Presumably it also pays out money in various directions in the course of its activities, one does not know where, but the recent three star Michelin restaurant bill of HW, countersigned "authorised by David Levy" could be considered suggestive. It appears to operate from the London address of it's long time president, David Levy.
In order not be considered an on-going business with money in and money out on a year on year basis, it would have to be registered, at least under UK law, as some entity with special status. The way this is normally done in the UK is by becoming a registered charity. Charities must display their registered charity number on documents. But, from David Levy's quote "we have no obligation to register anywhere for tax or legal purposes" it appears at first sight that this sort of registration has not taken place. Thus, on the basis of reading the above, the entity "ICGA" would appear to default to being a business. As a business with turnover, it is obliged to produce accounts and file a tax return to HMRC (if it would be considered under UK jurisdiction, and given the long standing use of Mr Levy's London address, this would seem reasonable), it would also be required, if its turnover exceeded some minimum level, to register for VAT and to make a VAT return on a quarterly basis to HM Customs and Excise specifying its inputs and outputs and VAT payable. Whether a business makes a profit or not, it still has to file returns unless it has been given special dispensation to not do so, and even charities have to file a return to the Charity Commissioners.
Hopefully there is a fully rational explanation for David Levy's statement "The ICGA is a non-profit organisation and as such we have no obligation to register anywhere for tax or legal purposes. We do not make tax returns, and on all our invoices we state that no VAT is payable"
> "authorised by David Levy"
Authorised as a joke so that I could include it in my expenses to Mark which of course was rejected. I did text Hans(rybka operator) from the Restaurant asking him to make a collection for me to help pay the bill - I think he got about 6 cents!
So let's see your next lie......
How can this be a lie?
In your case the simple conclusion is to believe nothing you say without real evidence, and the evidence, provided by you, is that signed restaurant invoice. Which is suggestive, no more and no less.
the only "evidence" is a photograph, presumably from you, for showing off purposes, of an expensive restaurant invoice countersigned authorised by DL. What did you want and expect people to think when you flashed this document into the public domain?
Powered by mwForum 2.27.4 © 1999-2012 Markus Wichitill