Path: utzoo!utgpu!water!watmath!clyde!att!osu-cis!tut.cis.ohio-state.edu!mailrus!cornell!uw-beaver!tektronix!uunet!wucs1!wuibc!gmat
From: gmat@wuibc.UUCP (Gregory Martin Amaya Tormo)
Newsgroups: comp.sys.ibm.pc
Subject: Re: Wake up and smell the coffee
Summary: This is a better smear tactic than BUSH has used
Message-ID: <301@wuibc.UUCP>
Date: 2 Oct 88 20:15:21 GMT
References: <4574232@<KPETERSEN> <16800358@clio> <925@psu-cs.UUCP> <1988Sep13.185106.14193@gpu.utcs.toronto.edu> <506@mks.UUCP> <439@l5comp.UUCP>
Reply-To: gmat@wuibc.UUCP (Gregory Martin Amaya Tormo)
Organization: Washington University in St. Louis
Lines: 489

Politui

>[The author kindly asks that if you wish to flame him in public that you
>at least read the last few paragraphs of this message before doing so.]
>

	I did.

>One reason this thing is a mess is that more people haven't read and ANALYZED
>what they've read before making leaps of logic (and then making their leaps
>public via this forum.)

	This is true.

>The other big problem has been one Keith Peterson. He's been dancing around
>this thing trying to throw gas on it to keep it going. He's scored a few
>good splashes, but he has also needlessly muddied this matter when he missed.
>(Can you make mud with gas? I hope so or my metaphor is in trouble. :)

	It is not nice to place personal comments or flames in the net.

>First big leap that people SHOULD have made but didn't about the recent
>2nd lawsuit filed by SEA: They spent their $40,000 WELL! They got a damn
>good lawyer who advised them well and may yet get one Phil Katz thrown in
>jail.

>It doesn't MATTER at this point wether SEA's trademark, copyright, patent or
>whatever they want to claim matters. It's a moot point now. Old history.
>Yesterday's cat litter.

	Not true.  The legal process is not black and white.  There is
still a matter of good faith.  If SEA (meaning the company and the lawyer)
did not bargain and settle in good faith, than PKware still has rights,
fine print or not.

>SEA's lawyer laid a beaut of a TRAP for Phil Katz in that out of court
>settlement. And Phil's lawyer let him leap right into the middle of it.
>I was truely amazed at the sheer beauty of the strategy that SEA's lawyer
>laid out on this one folks.

	I rest my case (pardon the pun).  If PK can show it was a trap,
they still have rights.  I smell coersion here.  Maybe not physical, but it
sounds like the agreement was signed under duress.  Let us not falsely
believe our legal system is infallable and this could not happen.

>So all of Keith's recent efforts to fan the "SEA can't claim a trademark on
>ARC" are for naught, if he's trying to save Phil. Even if SEA's claim to ARC
>as a trademark is proven to be false at this point, Phil agreed not to use
>it in his out of court settlement.

	I do not think this is so cut and dry.  The copyright issue in
software has long been debated.  Maybe SEA can copyright the name ARC, but
I would argue whether they can copyright an extension.  .PAS is not
copyrighted, Bell systems has not restricted use of .C.  Trademarks are one
thing, but some things are just too public domain to protect.

>here folks. Less than two weeks went by between the effective date of the
>out of court settlement and the second filing.

	Another pointer to bad faith.  If SEA's lawyer effected this
settlement with the intension of hanging PKware for it, then there was no
meeting of the minds, and PKware has the chance of rendering it invalid.

>My impression is that SEA's lawyer said to SEA: "Well guys, *MAYBE* I can
>win this trademark thing if it goes to court, and maybe I can't. The odds
>aren't too good. However, if we can get an out of court settlement with
>this little idea I've got cooked up in it I can assure you I can nail
>him when he violates it." Phil's lawyer didn't spot the trap, Phil fell for
>it, and with a cackle SEA's lawyer leapt upon them as soon as he had the
>proof he needed in hand. (SEA's lawyer probably bought the first copy of
>the PKPAK software :)

	Again, the words are less important than the intention.  SEA can
not say one thing and be meaning another thing intentionally.  ie. For the
Lawyer to plan such a thing from the beginning is deceitful, and can
invalidate the contract whether the PK lawyer saw it coming or not.

>The reason I think the above, is that if those little bombs hidden in the
>out of court settlement weren't intentional, it would have taken longer than
>two weeks for SEA to notice the legal bonanza Phil had given them. They
>HAD to be waiting with baited breath for Phil's new program to have acted
>as quickly as they did.

	Exactly.

>Instead of filing "Friend of the Court" documents, those who like Phil better
>start baking cakes with files inside 'em. :) Of course the judge MIGHT let
>him off with all his money gone rather than taking his liberty, but I just
>don't see any way he's going to get out of this one scott free. Especially
>with the class of legal talent he's hiring.

	You are presuming too much here about the legal system and PK's
lawyers.  I sense that you are as much a SEA fan as you flamed Mr. Richards
for being a fan of PK earlier.  This text is loaded with biased comments
against PKware, Phil Katz, and their lawyers.

>Enough on that topic, onward to Keith's next favorite topic, the new program
>Phil may be writing from the grey bar motel. (Do they let you have a computer
>in federal prison, or just a tennis racket?)

	Bias?  Nah.

>Phil has made alot of friends by providing a faster archiver with a better
>compression scheme, but he has done little or nothing to further the
>public domain. No one gets to stare at his source to gleen new methods of
>doing things, or to figure out how to handle SQUASHED archives. Those who
>say SEA is evil should consider Phil's track record just a TAD more closely.

	Wrong.  Furthering the public domain has nothing to do with
releasing the source results of your labor.  PKware (as is ARC) is
commercial shareware.  That is every programmers dream, to have a program o
succesful it can be marketed commercially.  PKware has furthered the public
domain concept by providing faster, smarter, and more effective archiving
programs.  So what if they did not release source code.  I wouldn't have
either and I firmly believe in the shareware concept and public domain.

>Now I'm going to make one more leap that I'm sure is going to get my mailbox
>filled with crap from people who love Phil and won't read and UNDERSTAND
>what I'm about to say.

	I do not love Phil.  I do not even know him.  All I do know is I
started using ARC by SEA, and as soon as I found it, I switched to PKARC by
PKware not because I did not like SEA (They have done much for the BBS
world), but because when I compared them PKARC WORKED BETTER.

>I think the person responsible for the whole ARC mess is one Phil Katz, not
>SEA. We have only Mr. Katz to thank for getting SEA so pissed off that they
>decided they had to take a new posture on ARC. Mr. Katz went in and started
>taking away SEA's business without paying the dues that SEA has paid in full.
>There are no VMS/Unix/Atari ST/Commodore C64/CPM/Amiga PKARC programs folks.
>And there never would have been since Phil never released his source.

	You must be nuts.  Are you saying that it is because they gave
SEA competition PKware is responsible for the situation?  Well then I guess
no one should write a dbase or 123 compatible program for fear of a similar
situation.  I remember reading somewhere that PKware did NOT copy the
sources from SEA ARC into PKARC.  The algorithms for compression techniques
are not copyright, they are public freeware. And if I am not incorrect, SEA
came out with ARCE after PKware came out with PKXARC.  Who stole who's idea
then? 

>Just look at it from SEA's viewpoint for a moment, you've created the industry
>standard and fostered it's growth across a BROAD range of computers. But the
>only place you get any pay back is from the IBM PC market. And then this
>Phil Katz guy decides he's going to go after it, without having any of the
>overhead from being the industry standard. He can even add this SQUASHED
>format with ease since he has no concerns of VMS/UNIX/AMIGA etc...

	This is a weak point.  You can not create an industry standard (and
I submit SEA did that, just as SEADOG has created a standard for mailing
packets in Fidonet.  But you can not rest on your laurals and use it as an
excuse to prevent competition.  PKware did have overhead.  They did have
program developement, and to suggest they decided one thursday afternoon to
give SEA a run for their money and began distributing PKARC is insane.  If
you have done any software developement, you would know this not to be
true.

>What would you do? Most people say SEA deserves to loose this conflict because
>they didn't keep improving ARC and making it faster. But this is patently
>untrue. What was ARC 5.21? Chopped liver? And never forget that if they add a
>feature to ARC it has a wide impact which will elicit the same howls of
>protest that PKARC's SQUASHED format brought.

	That is competition.  I tried ARC 5.21.  I still found PKARC to be
a better program for my archiving uses.  It was not chopped liver, but it
was not caviar either.  That was my opinion, and I do not suggest that
others would not find ARC 5.21 better, but you suggest everyone must do so.
And if ARC adds a better feature, that is the art of competition in a free
market.  PKware must respond by matching or improving that feature.

>Surely people can remember back to when Phil was public enemy number one with
>SYSOPS over his SQUASHED format? GEnie just recently started letting people
>post arc files using this format. And only in the IBM roundtables since there
>is no PKARC for the other computers.

	Show me Lotus 123 for VMS/Unix/etc.  Does Seadog run on non-msdos
computers?  If you know anything about Fidonet, anytime someone introduces
something new they become PE #1.  That does not make either side wrong.  It
just means that one sides approach could have ben better organized, and the
otherside argued because it was new, or they did not think of it, or any
number of stupid reasons.

>I wonder if anyone out there has noticed the parallels between Ollie North and
>Phil Katz? Both of these guys stand a snow ball's chance in hell of winning
>in court, but the media has turned both of them into heros of the common man.
>(Only Phil doesn't have Ronnie to give him a pardon. :)

	Are you a rebulican?  The media has not looked at this situation.
It is not a media event.  A few trade journals mentioned the lawsuit, but
none indepth that I have seen.  I think Ollie had a litle more exposure.

>Almost overnight Phil has gone from public enemy number one with his SQUASHED
>format, to poor old Phil attacked by big bad SEA.

	Not overnight.  One.  Whatever feeling Thom Henderson and Phil Katz
might have toward eachother, you should remember that the suit involves SEA
and PKware.  You portray Phil as a lonely person and SEA as a large
company.  That is a little exagerrated.  BTW, I think you are beginning to
ramble.  There better be a good closing 8+>

>I'm sorry folks but I just can't see SEA as the big bad evil thing that Keith
>seems to think they are. If they were so damn evil why did they try to
>resolve this issue with Phil rather than just going after him up front. They
>tried to work it out with him and Phil told 'em to take a long walk on a short
>pier, no counter offer or anything, just go to hell. And probably sat back
>with a huge grin on his face saying "NOW we've really got 'em on the run boys!
>Keep up the pressure!"

	You are entitled to your opinion.  You started this disertation
saying you wanted to state the facts.  You should have stated your opinion
and backed it up with your facts.  You asked why they tried to resolve the
issue.  You already stated they did NOT try to resolve the issue, but
congratulated the SEA law team on their trickery.

>And then when they sued him they let him off the hook with a damn nice out
>of court settlement. SEA didn't have to be anywhere near as nice in letting
>Phil off the hook. It isn't SEA's fault that Phil's lawyer didn't spot the
>landmines in the agreement. If Phil had lived up to the letter of the
>agreement I'm sure SEA's lawyer would have been nashing his teeth in
>disappointment. But let's face it, he's a lawyer, he ain't supposed to be
>a good guy, he's supposed to WIN. The landmines were probably his idea not
>SEA's.

	Lawyers are good guys depending on which side you are on.  They are
supposed to win.  They are not supposed to stoop to tricks and deceptions
to do so.  Above all, a lawyer is supposed to be ethical.  SEA was not nice
in letting PKware off the hook if they deliberately tried to reach a
settlement that they intended to use against PKware in the future.  Holding
PKware to an agreement and looking to trap them with an agreement are two
different things.

>Like alot of people I got REALLY steamed when this issue first started to
>break upon the world. I was all set to convert my .arc files to .zoo files
>and write letters to SEA telling them to shove ARC sideways. But then unlike
>most people I thought about this whole mess and ANALYZED what was REALLY going
>on. I tried to seperate the mud from the cause/effect/motivations of the whole
>issue.

	I have watched all this too.  I was never angry enough at any side
to want to switch to zoo.  It sounds though that in your analization you have
paid more intention to SEAs side.  Did you find out what PKware's
interpretation of the settlement was?  If both sides did not interpret the
agreement the same way and Phil Katz signed the agreement with this
different understanding, then the agreement may be invalidated in court.

>I was surprised to find myself coming around to SEA's view of this thing. I
>mean when you get right down to it who's done the most good for the most
>people? SEA or PKWare? Who's been more open? SEA or PKWare? Who's had the
>larger investment in ARC? SEA or PKWare? And if PKWare were to run SEA out
>of the ARC business who would be hurt? SEA or ME?

	The final answer to your retorical questions is ALL OF US.  Both
sides have contributed toward ameteur BBSing.  Both have put a lot of time,
money, and effort into their respective products.  You seem to think that
by being first SEA worked harder.  While I give credit to SEA for coming up
with the idea, I do not set them up on a pedistol.  I give the credit to
the compnay that comes up with better improvements.

>The last issue is what finally made me wake up folks. I've heard several
>times that it's always a good idea to take something and reverse it to
>see if you would like it the other way around, and THEN decide what to do.
>
>SEA gave us source code to ARC so everyone could use it. PKWare gave us
>nothing. If SEA were to give up on ARC those of us that depended on that
>source code for non-PCDOS versions of ARC would be screwed since PKWare
>gave away their source. Never promised to either. Never gave away
>SQUASHED arc files.

	You keep harping on the source code to ARC.  What have YOU done
with it?  PKware has published the structure of arc files, so you can do
the same thing they did - take the compression algorithms and develope your
own non-dos versions.  

>After looking at it that way I just couldn't swallow Keith's garbage anymore.
>And further study revealed all that I have laid out above.

	I am sure Keith feels the same after reading your message.

>But just keep that above thought in mind when you pick a side to root for,
>who's really trying to keep people from using their code?

	Why must we take sides.  Neither side is trying to prevent people
from using their code.  Just that PKware is not releasing the SOURCE.  One
the other hand SEA is trying to prevent people from using PKware's code.

>I'm amazed that with the leaps people have taken to see SEA in a negative
>light that more people haven't done the same with PKWare.

	And versa visa.

>Let's look at this whole mess through "Ollie glasses", but with a different
>tilt.

	Are you sure you are not republican?  Spin control?

>Phil has managed, through what would seem to be his close buddy Keith, to
>start a anti-SEA movement. Everywhere you look you hear the chant "Kill SEA!
>Kill SEA! Down with ARC! I want Phil's new product WHATEVER it is!"

	Do you have any evidence to back up this accusation against Keith
and Phil?  Or maybe you are overstating the situation a bit.

>Boy, wouldn't you LOVE to be in that position?

	Sarcasm is what contributes to these discussions getting out of
control.

>But it gets better. He now runs around saying his new program will use a
>public domain file format and he will give away a library of routines for
>reading/writing the new file format.
>
>He doesn't have to promise to give away all the source code, since he has
>cleverly made the two topics of file format and reading/writing it HOT
>buttons for the public. They see he's going to be a good guy about these
>hot buttons and look no further. Like how those folks using machines Phil
>has no intrest in are going to get a copy of his new program to use? Phil is
>going to have a whole new market open to him on the PC universe and if he
>succeeds in the current campaign he'll make a PILE of money off it. He's not
>about to repeat SEA's mistake and give away the source code to HIS program
>so he can face his own Phil Katz some day.

	It all comes down to the source code, and I think you want it on a
silver platter.  PKware has promised all the tools you need to create PK
compatible programs.  You want the programs yourself.  I would prefer the
challenge of writing my on PK compatible program than simply moving from
one machine to another with modified sources.  Shareware programmers rarely
make a lot of money.  Have you paid either a registration fee?  Since you
were so undecided until looking at the facts, I would hazard not, although
I would not be suprised if you were a registered SEA customer.

>I'm sure he's ALL in favor of this new file archiver. I'm sure he also gets
>a real grin on his face when people say "I'm going to use his new program,
>whatever it does." I'm sure he'll chuckle all the way to the bank as well.

	I do not think anyone is so naive as to think this.  You are
putting words in his mouth in order to support your premise.

>Off with the "Ollie glasses".

	Does this mean you are now Democrat?

>Personally I'd like to see Rahul succeed with his ZOO program. I have no real
>fondness for ARC, and like his ZOO program MUCH better. Of all the players
>in this whole issue I think he's the one who should get public support. The
>man has been responsive to public attention about his program, fixed bugs,

>added features, and has consistantly NOT tried to turn a dime off it. When

	I have just obtained a copy of zoo, and have not used it, so I can
not comment on it or the author's dedication to service.
>I ask anyone who has read this far down into this rather long article, which
>standard would you rather use? The one created by the guy chuckling all the
>way to the bank, or the one created by the guy who takes pride in doing a good
>job in creating a standard and only asks for a little recognition? (And a
>chance to tilt at windmills :) Who can we trust more not to screw us? The guy
>who's livelyhood DEPENDS on the new standard, or the guy who's got a job to
>support him that doesn't depend on his standard's success or failure?

	SEA is the one going to the bank, and they ask for a lot of
recognition.  There is only one standard.  Both companies have enhanced it.
I wish to use the one that works best for me.  I do not feel either party
has tried to screw us, and I think livelyhood depends not on the new
standard, but on the result of the lawsuit.  SEA makes a living from many
software packages.  PKware is not as large.  I do not know of the financial
situations of either of the principles, but I do not think either would go
to the poor house with no opportunities should they not sell any more
archiving programs.

>I mean if someone makes a clone ZOO is Rahul going to run around screaming
>"You're taking food out of the mouths of my wife and children!"???

	Seems to me that is exactly what SEA is saying.

>I think not.

	I do not think SEA should say so either.

>And from a USENET standpoint who should we back? Rahul who is a user of this
>forum, giver of his time as a moderator of comp.binaries.ibm.pc, or some other
>person who's never used USENET? I can sit here and type a message to Rahul
>using USENET and get a response from him, how about Phil? (or SEA for that
>matter) Shouldn't we USENETers be supporting one of our own if given the
>chance?

	You can post a message to the COMP.ORG.FIDONET and send mail to
over 4000 Fidonet BBSs who can provide help, in addition to mailing to the
principles in both companies.  Or you can write a letter.  I hope you still
have a pencil.  I have no problem with PKware and SEA not participating in
USENET.  You want cake, frosting, and now to have it delivered on a silver
platter.

>I hope this article will wake a few more people up to the dangers of this new
>course that Keith is trying to steer us all onto.

	And thank you for aquainting us on your viewpoints.  I just wish
you could have made them without having to tear down Keith and Phil's
character.

>But there is one thing he is right about, we can no longer, thanks to Phil
>Katz, rely on ARC as the industry standard. Phil has forced SEA into a postion
>that they can no longer back down from. A new industry standard will HAVE
>to be selected at this point. Not because SEA is evil, but because Phil Katz
>backed them into a corner and they were FORCED to act as any reasonable person
>would when their livelyhood is threatened.

	Neither are to blame.  Both are to blame.  It takes two to have
a fight.  If common sense would prevail, SEA and PKware could come to an
agreement that would benefit the archive standard rather than create a war
in which two competing archive formats battle it out for the gold.

>
>Thanks a WHOLE LOT Phil. :(
>
>I just hope Keith wakes up before Phil leads him and everyone else into
>creating this SEA mess all over again. Make no mistake, given the choice of
>making a living off his new standard or giving it away, Phil is going to
>choose making a living. And he WILL, defend it at all costs just as SEA has
>done. Mark my words well on that point. Phil is just as human as the folks
>at SEA, and if put into the same position we can expect him to react in
>similar fashion.

	And your article has proven you are human to.  

>---------------------- The Promised Concise Summary --------------------------
>
>Phil backed SEA into a corner, wouldn't understand their position or if he
>did didn't give a damn, and forced them to take their best shot. They did,
>scored what I think will be a mortal blow to Phil (thanks to their lawyer),
>and now Phil is running around going "The bastards shot me! And I didn't do
>anything to them! Help me! Help me!" Only problem is SEA didn't shoot him,
>they nuked him. And the fallout is covering alot of other people. I'm sure
>SEA is just as unhappy as everyone else that the weapon their lawyer gave
>them to use was a tac nuke rather than a Detonics Combat Master with Glaser
>safety slugs.

	I have not heard Phil or PKware make any statement.  Nor have I
heard SEA make a statement.  What I have heard is a lot of people running
around spouting facts favoring both sides.  To many people are second
guessing events, motives, and reasons.  And the fallout from that has done
more damage than the the conflict itself.

>Let's learn from this, and not blindly jump right back into the same mess.
>The real lesson here is not that trademarks and copyrights are evil, but
>rather that people will act rashly when their livelyhood is threatened. Let's
>back a standard where no one has to worry about their families eating if
>their version of the extractor/creator program isn't a financial success.

	No, trademarks are not illegal, but a responsibility comes with
them.  Both sides have acted rashly in my opinion, and neither sides lively
hood nees to be threatened.  You do not wish to back a standard, but a
company.  By definition, a standard can not belong to one company; then it
is a monopoly.

>Just as with guns, the tools themselves aren't evil, it's the people that use
>them. And sometimes they aren't evil, they're just desperate.

	Yes, SEA was desparate to get rid of competition, and PKware is
desparate to stay in business.  This crap about guns and evil is just
emotionalism that confuses the issues.

>I think we need both gun control and lawyer control. Both areas are far too
>wide open. Guns should only be in the hands of people who know full well
>how to use them and what will happen when they do. Lawyers can be JUST as
>destructive to a person's life as a saturday night special in the hands of
>a coked up teenager. As SEA has demonstrated, lawyers are potent weapons
>with far reaching side effects if they are not used properly.
	
>And this is where lawyers everywhere should hang their heads in shame. A gun
>doesn't know any better, lawyers should. (In all fairness there are still
>a FEW lawyers that aren't win-at-all-costs killing machines but there are far
>too many who are)
>
>Scott Turner
>scotty@l5comp -or- uunet!l5comp!scotty

	Scott, what contact have you had with lawyers?  Where do you get
your facts? Do you have any relations to SEA or PKware?  Just how do you
use archiving programs.  As you might guess, I disagree with much of what
you said, but to borrow an old cliche, I would defend your right to say it.
It would help if I knew the context from which you form your opinion.  

	I do not know anyone from SEA or from PKware.  I have been involved
with Fidonet as a user and am currently a cosysop of 1:100/22.  I have had
access to USENET for a year as as Student at Washington University.  I use
archiving to keep a 25+ disk library of public domain files, for backups,
and for compressing my hard disk before backing it up.  My views are my own
opinion, and I have tried not to flame you, scott, nor make any more
controversial statements.  I too am human and ask forgiveness of the net if
I have overstepped the bounds of simply responding with my opinions.