Language Design And Property Rights 
Author Message
 Language Design And Property Rights


Quote:

>> >   He could not prevent books from being published in Klingon.  I'll
>> >agree with that.  But, do you really think he would give the necessary
>> >permission (that you state is needed) to allow somebody to put him out
>> >of business?

>> His permission is NOT needed.  The permission of Paramount Pictures IS. And

>   Exactly, the holder of the copyright.

No, the holder of the TRADEMARK.

Quote:

>> as far as I know Marc Okrand is not a majority share-holder in Paramount.
>> Again that is a TRADEMARK issue, not a COPYRIGHT issue.  And TRADEMARKS have
>> fair use as well. The statement "Eric's Super Cola tastes just like Coke(TM)"
>> does NOT violate any trademark of Coca-Cola Inc.

>   Yes, and you can say "I have a Symbolic Assebly Language that makes
>programming easy just like TERSE(TM)".  But it can't *BE* TERSE.  You
>can be "like" TERSE, but you can't *BE* TERSE.  Just like you can't
>claim to *BE* Coca Cola.

You are right it can't BE TERSE.  It can work just like TERSE, it can be
99.999% compatible.  But as long as it's not called TERSE, it's not TERSE.

Quote:

>> And no one else can call their product TERSE or include TERSE in it's name.
>> They can claim in the manual "This product is 99% compatible with TERSE(TM)"
>> without violating your trademark.  And if your lawyer tells you otherwise,
>> again, it's time to get another lawyer.

>   No they can't.  They can make a statement like the one I made
>above, but if they are 99% compatable with TERSE, they are in violation
>of my copyright.

How so?  Suppose someone write a clone, having never seen TERSE nor it's manual.
They send it out to the beta testers and the beta testers say "This is 99%
compatible with terse"  How has your copyright been violated?

Quote:
>> How long would a program need to be to incorporate all elements of the TERSE
>> syntax.  How would you prove that the program has no purpose other than to
>> defraud you?  Do your customers have to be careful how much of the TERSE
>> syntax they use, in order to avoid a lawsuit?  I thought you placed no
>> restriction on code written in TERSE?  This looks like a restriction to me.
>> Do your customers need to deliberately include bogus code or syntax errors
>> to prevent your wrath?

>   Of course not.  All my customers are *very* happy with TERSE and have
>no fear of me (I don't consider Ms. Remmel to be a customer).  Any program
>written in TERSE no matter how complex would not give away all of the
>details of the TERSE language.  The language is not bounded.

The language is not bounded?  That must be one damn big manual. If the language
is not bounded, to book, manual, or program could ever explain it all.
No program, no matter how complex would not contain all elements of the
TERSE syntax? ROFL!

Quote:
>> >   When is the last time YOU did *any* development?  I don't see YOU
>> >doing anything to expand the state of the art.  

>> Apparently it's more recently than you did.  All of your terse examples seem
>> to be in the 16 bit realm.  As for extending the state of the art, why are
>> you trying to squelch those who do attempt to expand the state of the art.

>    Aparently?  I don't see anything?  What have you produced?

Apparently you think that because I usually distribute my work to fellow
scientists free of charge, that it's not real development.  And what I develop
in my spare time is usually distributed under the GPL.  Nothing advances
the state of the art like giving your work to anyone that wants it.

Quote:
>TERSE is the FIRST REAL ADVANCE in machine level programing since the
>invention of the macro assembler.

Hoo hoo hoo.  More ROFL.  This guy really cracks me up!

Quote:
>   Explaining the law to those who are too narrow minded to be able
>to understand it on their own is what I'm doing.  I'm not beating
>anybody over the head with anything.

Threatening those who want to produce extended compatible versions of
TERSE with lawsuits is easier than developing the extensions yourself.

Quote:
>                                  Trying to "bend" the interpertation
>of the law to make something "look" legal is NOT very honerable.

And bending the interpertation of the law to make it look like your
competitors are doing something illegal is just as dishonorable.

Quote:
>             And if the law isn't enough, morality dictates that one
>shouldn't take what is not yours.

Morality also dictates that one shoudn't claim ownership rights to things
which are not subject to those rights.

Eric
--
Eric Korpela                        |  An object at rest can never be

<a href=" http://www.*-*-*.com/ ;>
Click here for more info.</a>



Tue, 24 Aug 1999 03:00:00 GMT  
 Language Design And Property Rights

This whole argument is stupid.  For $50 you can BUY terse... and I'll
tell you that is one of those good investments I made.  I think it is
kind of a nice thing, telling someone you appreciate what they have done
with some money on the table.  Is it really worth it, having this fight
over $50?

And I suspect Jim isn't so worried about terse spreading as he is about
getting shut out of a good thing.  With all the theifs and cheats out there
who will take advantage of ANYTHING to get their own way I don't really
blame him for feeling that way.

But here is a hypothetical: what if I write a program that uses a terse-like
syntax, but generates an OBJECT file rather than assembler source?  Would
that still be terse?  What if I put in all the fancy error checking that terse
lacks... one of its major shortcomings is that errors are deferred to the
assembler.  That is the ONE thing I hate about terse... figuring out where
the errors are.  Can it still be called terse if it doesn't do a *major*
thing the terse manual gloats about---that is being entirely independent
of assembler and object module formats?  And what if it does *major* things
that present 'terse' compilers do not do... is it still the terse jim
pioneered?

And why does nobody OWN the language 'C' or the lagnuage 'Pascal' or the
language 'ASSEMBLY' or hell even the english language if languages can really
be owned?  Wouldn't that be great, having to pay a fee to someone before
we were allowed to talk?  Where do you think that would lead?  Greed of
course... it would rapidly turn from a one-time fee to a tax EVERY time
someone opened their mouth.And there would be BIG technology battels over
creating the kind of equipment that caught people talking. (think about
what the satellite companies did to the airwaives)
Such is the way men do things...

I'm not knocking your right to make money off this jim, I wish you well
and hope you DO prosper.  But at the same time I sense there are no
real innovations to what you are doing... certain things would be found
handy by numbers of programmers but you just don't want to take the time
to do them.  Are you going to restrict us from using a symbolic representation
similar to yours if we want to start putting in features you don't support?
What is the legal basis for that?  Does that mean I can make up a new word
and charge people if I hear them using it?  On the other hand you are using
symbols made by someone else... are you paying THEM a license fee to use
them?

I agree... if you want to keep the name 'terse' you should... and if you
haven't trademarked it do lest someone else trademark it and force you to
relinquish the name.  But on the other hand is it really good practice to
try to limit the minds of others from doing anything remotely like what you
have done?  Is this even good for you, let alone the other consequences
such actions always have?

David



Tue, 24 Aug 1999 03:00:00 GMT  
 Language Design And Property Rights


: This whole argument is stupid.  For $50 you can BUY terse... and I'll
: tell you that is one of those good investments I made.  I think it is
: kind of a nice thing, telling someone you appreciate what they have done
: with some money on the table.  Is it really worth it, having this fight
: over $50?

[SNIP]

Allow me to summarize:

        * Jim claims that other language designers failure to protect
their rights in no way erodes his own rights on terse

        * Jim claims while the idea of terse is free for the taking, his
own expression of the idea is not.

        * Tenie can make a clone of terse can call it something else but
as far as Jim is concerned, if it looks like a duck, acts like a duck, it
is a duck.

        * The full description of terse is in the manual (posted examples
only scratched the surface), so if anyone comes out with a 99.99% terse
clone, it must have been 'derived' from the manual.

Also, Jim must have spent an insane amount of time working on the design
of symbolic assembly language. Writing something based on an existing
design is easy. Design takes a lot of work because you will spend most of
your time not creating the actual product but designing and redesigning
AND redesign the product. He IS NOT going to let other people getting a
free ride out of this.

That being said, Tenie, let him have his terse. Not on a legal basis, but
out of respect for a designer's work. K&R may feel that they are doing a
public service by allowing clones but Jim doesn't feel that way.

Me, I have seen enough of terse examples to know that a properly written C
compiler can yet beat the {*filter*}out of an assembler. You may need to
violate some of the variable behavior rules a bit.  I don't care what
Scott Nudds thinks. It is still humanly difficult, if not impossible, in
assembler to know the ordering of expression evaluation and identifying
all common sub-expression that would require the least amount of resources
AND STILL have a meaningful and maintainble expression of an algorithm.
Scott Nudds has shown that a C expression of an algorithm can be converted
into a highly optimal assembly code. All that needs to be done is to
automate the process, maybe by getting rid of the fortran linkage.

Jim, if Uncle Bill sees some potential in your product and comes out of
Visual T++, good luck. You may be on the right, but it's gonna cost you a
lot of money to prove it. Welcome to the free world.

Let's put this to rest.

Hasdi

#include <std/disclaimer>



Wed, 25 Aug 1999 03:00:00 GMT  
 Language Design And Property Rights

i just wanted to say...

'infozip' is a free program that accept the same file format as
'pkzip'... and it produces the same output file

'nega' is (was?) a free program that accept the same file format as
'terse'... and it produces the same output file

then why 'nega' violate the copyright of 'terse'
and 'infozip' not violate the copyright of 'pkzip'

???

as you said before... current law dont distinguish between a compiler,
and any other programs, any more than it distinguish software from
book...

and besides...

if 'nega' is copyright violation

you can sue Tylisha C. Andersen, the author, right?

but you cannot sue Tenie... he uploaded her program, to Simtel but he
appear to have removed it when you then complain -- so, you would not
be awarded a cent...

also, i wonder, you don't suppose you could sue Simtel?

if i were to give some guy postage, to send a book (or song, etc) to
the publisher, and it turns out to be copyright violation, i wouldnt
be liabel, at least by current law...  

what i'm saying, is you may be right, but you would get nothing,
if you tried to sue Tenie... or Simtel...

you maybe could go after Tylisha, the author...

but you still be unlikely to get money (unless settle out of court)
because 'nega' doesnt appear to be available now -- how could you
prove damage to business?

also wonder why Scott Nudds is such an idiot around here...

-- Yuri S.

yes my email address is bogus to not get junk mail, email me to get
the real thing...



Wed, 25 Aug 1999 03:00:00 GMT  
 Language Design And Property Rights


Quote:



>> You are right it can't BE TERSE.  It can work just like TERSE, it can be
>> 99.999% compatible.  But as long as it's not called TERSE, it's not TERSE.

>   If it looks like a duck and talks like a duck it *is* a duck.

So Compaq PC was IBM PC?

Quote:
> You
>(or anybody else) can't steal my expression.  Just like you can't
>record you own version of some song, give it a new name and distrubute
>it.  Period.

Lyrics and sheet music are works that are copyrighted. A software
interface is not.

Quote:

>> How so?  Suppose someone write a clone, having never seen TERSE nor it's manual.
>> They send it out to the beta testers and the beta testers say "This is 99%
>> compatible with terse"  How has your copyright been violated?

>   If they did so HAVING NO PRIOR KNOWLEDGE of TERSE, then there would
>be no violation.  There is a specific execption in the law for this
>EXACT case.  If you *knew* about TERSE however, if you had a copy or
>not, it would be a violation.

Compaq cloned IBM PC BIOS with knowledge what it did. That was perfectly
legal as they did not include action IBM code. Sure IBM would have
prevented them from doing so by they could not.

Osmo



Thu, 26 Aug 1999 03:00:00 GMT  
 Language Design And Property Rights


Quote:
> then why 'nega' violate the copyright of 'terse'
> and 'infozip' not violate the copyright of 'pkzip'

Good point.  Not only this, but PKZIP is based on PATENTED algorithms, which
InfoZIP uses WITHOUT license.  Jim claims NO patents on TERSE or any of its
underlying algorithms.  If InfoZIP is not a violation of the copyrights and
patents on PKZIP, then clearly nega can not be a violation of the copyrights
on TERSE since TERSE has even less protection than PKZIP (TERSE has no patent
protecting any of its underlying algorithms).

Quote:
> what i'm saying, is you may be right, but you would get nothing,
> if you tried to sue Tenie... or Simtel...

Exactly.  They could not be held liable for SOMEONE ELSE violating a
copyright (if said copyright was actually violated), just like I couldn't be
held liable for someone else robbing a bank.

Quote:
> you maybe could go after Tylisha, the author...

that would be the ONLY way which he would have any chance of collecting
anything, ASSUMING it could be proven in court that his copyright was in fact
violated.

-steve

Origin: Slave Pit BBS * 562-802-9136



Thu, 26 Aug 1999 03:00:00 GMT  
 Language Design And Property Rights

Quote:


>> then why 'nega' violate the copyright of 'terse'
>> and 'infozip' not violate the copyright of 'pkzip'
>Good point.  Not only this, but PKZIP is based on PATENTED algorithms, which
>InfoZIP uses WITHOUT license.  Jim claims NO patents on TERSE or any of its
>underlying algorithms.  If InfoZIP is not a violation of the copyrights and
>patents on PKZIP, then clearly nega can not be a violation of the copyrights
>on TERSE since TERSE has even less protection than PKZIP (TERSE has no patent
>protecting any of its underlying algorithms).

I disagree. If INFOZIP came out as a fully compatible PKWARE ZIP based
program, I am sure the folks at PKWARE would be filing suit.

According to all I have read re: full zip features, you are required to
license that ability with the folks at PKWARE.

Simple thing like reading/displaying ZIP headers (for example) are not
covered apparently, but come out with SuperZIPPER and have it look and feel
just like PKWARE's ZIP/UNZIP programs and you will have a legal fight on
your hands, guaranteed.

Quote:
>> what i'm saying, is you may be right, but you would get nothing,
>> if you tried to sue Tenie... or Simtel...
>Exactly.  They could not be held liable for SOMEONE ELSE violating a
>copyright (if said copyright was actually violated), just like I couldn't be
>held liable for someone else robbing a bank.

I disagree. Tenie was involved in the cloning, period. IE: How did you think
the court would figure Tylisha got her copy? She never bought one. She's a
close friend (or possible psuedonym) of Tenie's.

BTW, if you provided the bank robber's with equipment, in any way aided or
abetted them, and/or knew whome they were but failed to report it to
authority's, you'd be liable as an acomplice. Seems obvious to me that Tenie
provided "Tylisha" (does this person really exist? I searched DejaNews and
could find no posts by "her", nor could I find any email address match based
on her her rather individual name anywhere on the net) with an illegal copy
of TERSE to start with.

Ep

Ed Parry - Southern California, USA

Unauthorized amphibians will be toad away.



Fri, 27 Aug 1999 03:00:00 GMT  
 Language Design And Property Rights


Quote:

>> How so?  Suppose someone write a clone, having never seen TERSE nor it's manual.
>> They send it out to the beta testers and the beta testers say "This is 99%
>> compatible with terse"  How has your copyright been violated?

>   If they did so HAVING NO PRIOR KNOWLEDGE of TERSE, then there would
>be no violation.  There is a specific execption in the law for this
>EXACT case.  If you *knew* about TERSE however, if you had a copy or
>not, it would be a violation.

I think not.  Knowledge of a work is sufficient to prove that the author
of a similar work is in violation of the copyright?  I'm sure direct exposure
to the work in question is necessary.

Quote:
>> The language is not bounded?  That must be one damn big manual. If the
>> language is not bounded, to book, manual, or program could ever explain
>> it all.  No program, no matter how complex would not contain all
>> elements of the TERSE syntax? ROFL!

>   Sorry you don't understand the concept.  I can't write down all
>the real numbers between 0 and 1 but I can write *about* them, describe,
>them, etc.  If this were NOT the case, you wouldn't know what the real
>numbers are having never seen them enumerated.  My language is no
>different.

Are you saying that the properties of real numbers could not be determined
by seeing a fairly large sample of them?  If I see "ax+bx" in a terse program
and conclude that it means "add ax,bx" could I not also conclude that
"bx+cx" corresponds to "add bx,cx"?

Quote:
>> Apparently you think that because I usually distribute my work to fellow
>> scientists free of charge, that it's not real development.  And what I develop
>> in my spare time is usually distributed under the GPL.  Nothing advances
>> the state of the art like giving your work to anyone that wants it.

>  I'm happy for you that you can afford to give your work away.  I can't.
>And, recall the old adgage:  "You get what you pay for".  If it was WORTH
>anything, you (or your employer) would be selling it (them).

If dollars are to only "worth" you recognize, I pity you.  Apparently
charity has no meaning to you.  Apparently wanting to share code with others
means the code is worthless if you don't want to make a profit from it.
Has it ever occured to you that it brings me pleasure when my code is
useful to someone? I give my code away because it makes me feel good to
spite those who love nothing but money and the power it brings.  Like the
power to threaten competitors with litigation.  Some of us like to counter
that with threats of competition against the litigators.

The more this goes on the more I feel like developing a free TERSE clone.
If I didn't think TERSE was useless, I might do it.

Eric
--
Eric Korpela                        |  An object at rest can never be

<a href="http://www.cs.indiana.edu/finger/mofo.ssl.berkeley.edu/korpela/w">
Click here for more info.</a>



Fri, 27 Aug 1999 03:00:00 GMT  
 
 [ 20 post ]  Go to page: [1] [2]

 Relevant Pages 

1. Language Design And Property Rights

2. Language Design and Property Rights

3. Language design and property rights

4. Language Design and Property Rights

5. Intellectual property rights and unpaid royalties

6. Homestead site - "intellectual property rights"

7. ActiveX design Properties lost at Run-time

8. Objects properties - Ada design issues question

9. Design right or wrong?

10. What language is the right one for me?

11. Which Language is right for the job?

12. Which language is right for you

 

 
Powered by phpBB® Forum Software