Path: utzoo!attcan!uunet!lll-winken!lll-tis!helios.ee.lbl.gov!nosc!ucsd!ames!amdahl!pacbell!att!mtunb!dmt
From: dmt@mtunb.ATT.COM (Dave Tutelman)
Newsgroups: comp.sys.ibm.pc
Subject: Re: SEA threat to other ARC utility authors
Message-ID: <1301@mtunb.ATT.COM>
Date: 9 Sep 88 11:30:31 GMT
References: <KPETERSEN.12427478613.BABYL@SIMTEL20.ARMY.MIL> <8798@cup.portal.com>
Reply-To: dmt@mtunb.UUCP (Dave Tutelman)
Organization: AT&T Bell Labs - Lincroft, NJ
Lines: 60

In article <8798@cup.portal.com> raf@cup.portal.com writes:
>
>Actually, SEA Inc. (by its own admission) was inspired by the book
>"Software Tools" by Brian W. Kernighan and P.J. Plauger.  The ARC
>documentation contains an acknowledgement to this effect.  I have
>neither the reference nor the book handy at the moment, but I'd guess
>the book bears a copyright date in the late 70's.
	Actually 1976.

>
>I believe "Software Tools" devotes an entire chapter to the design and
>development, in C language, of a file librarian program called
>"archive".  This used a distributed directory approach and command line
>syntax remarkably similar to those used by SEA's ARC.
	All true.  BUT it was called "archive", not ARC, and there was
	no suggestion of including "ARC" in the name of archive files.

	Of course, we knew all along that nothing in the technology
	is original with SEA; the compression code is copied, the
	philosophy of archiving is copied, the "look and feel" of
	the interface is copied (from the referenced chapter in
	K&P).  What their lawyers claim is the use of the term
	"ARC", the details of the file format, and the look and feel
	of the user interface.  WELL, TWO OUT OF THREE AIN'T BAD.

	WRONG!!!! As has been posted recently, the ARC name was
	well used (in the archiving context).  So all that's left
	is the file format.  If they intend to restrict ITS use
	(they may well have the legal right), then it has no right
	to be a standard.  See all sorts of precedents in IEEE and
	ANSI rules about adopting any proprietary ANYTHING as a
	standard.

Of course, we're all familiar with the term "win-win" solutions.
Well, SEA managed to make this one a "lose-lose".  
   -	Nobody will ever use ARC after this; it'll dry up and blow
	away.  And those that remember why will avoid SEA products
	for a long time.  (I know I will.)
   -	Phil Katz may well be destroyed.  ("But, Ma, you shoulda'
	seen the other guy!")
   -	The user community has lost a VERY useful standard.  (ARC is
	untenable without PKARC in the PC BBS community, and nobody
	is going to touch it with a ten-foot pole, given SEA's
	behavior since the settlement.)
   -	The BBS sysops will lose a lot of time converting to whatever
	replaces ARC as a standard.

No, I'm wrong; there is a winner.  As usual, the lawyer/vultures
won again.  In fact, why does this whole thing sound like it started
with a lawyer suggesting a "bright idea" to Henderson?  (Or Henderson
getting pissed off because PK built a Model T compared
to SEA's buggy whip, and was making all the money.)

+---------------------------------------------------------------+
|    Dave Tutelman						|
|    Physical - AT&T Bell Labs  -  Lincroft, NJ			|
|    Logical -  ...att!mtunb!dmt				|
|    Audible -  (201) 576 2442					|
+---------------------------------------------------------------+
Disclaimer: These are my opinions alone, and have nothing to do
with any opinions my employer may hold.