Path: utzoo!attcan!uunet!sdrc!scjones From: scjones@sdrc.UUCP (Larry Jones) Newsgroups: comp.sys.ibm.pc Subject: Re: Phil Katz (PKARC author) sued by SEA (ARC author) Message-ID: <308@sdrc.UUCP> Date: 19 Jun 88 20:18:23 GMT References: <5912@megaron.arizona.edu> <4499@killer.UUCP> Organization: Structural Dynamics Research Corp., Cincinnati Lines: 57 In article <4499@killer.UUCP>, richardh@killer.UUCP (Richard Hargrove) writes: > I don't remember the exact wording of the originally posted article, but > my impression was that SEA is claiming 1) that PKARC looks an awful lot > like their ARC utility (compare the help screens, compare the /v displays, > etc.) and 2) they have some sort of right to the use of the name ARC. > Number one dates all the way back to the copyright wars over video games > back in the late 70's when it was established that even though a game > ran on a pc (rather than on a dedicated game box), if the graphics and/or > sound was similar enough (judgment call here) it was a copyright violation. > Since then a number of companies have been zinged on that one, the most > well known one being what Apple did to Digital Research over GEM. The source code certainly contains copyright notices, but I don't recall ever seeing any indication that the displays are copyrighted. I would expect the help screens to be similar since the programs do essentially the same thing. As for the listings being similar, don't all directory listing basically look alike? > As for > number 2, this one is even more open to judgement. What right does SEA > have to the name ARC? What constitutes a major enough variation to keep > from being an infringement? I noticed that Wendin changed the name of > PC-UNIX to PCNX; I wonder if it was under duress from AT&T? These are > questions that have nothing to do with code _per se_. It's not that simple > and there are potentially big $$ to be made here. UNIX is a trademark of AT&T in the United States and other countries. Wendin could certainly not use it without their permission and AT&T used to never grant permission. SEA on the other hand has never, to my knowledge, tried to establish ARC as a trademark. I've avoided throwing in my two cents worth up until now, but I can't restrain myself any longer. Thom Henderson had a really good idea to combine a number of existing data compression algorithms with an archiver to produce ARC, but that's all he did -- there was very little original code in ARC. In fact, the source code used to contain comments to the effect that he hadn't the foggiest idea how the LZW compression worked, he just copied the code from somewhere else. It's incredibly hypocritical to criticize, let alone sue, Phil Katz for doing the same thing (and I presume Phil copied from the same places as Thom did, as opposed to copying from Thom's copyrighted code). As I see it, SEA had a gold mine going which has dried up because of PKWARE's far superior product. Being unable or unwilling to produce a better product of their own, they have decided to solve the problem in the neo-traditional way -- a lawsuit. The unfortunate result is that, just like the Apple vs. Microsoft suit, it doesn't matter who wins, who loses is us. ---- Larry Jones UUCP: ...!sdrc!scjones SDRC AT&T: (513) 576-2070 2000 Eastman Dr. BIX: ltl Milford, OH 45150 "When all else fails, read the directions."