Aces High Bulletin Board
General Forums => Aces High General Discussion => Topic started by: Brick on August 26, 1999, 12:16:00 PM
-
Since Mr. Hitech is involved (apparently) in this story, I thought I'd throw up the link here:
http://www.wired.com/news/news/culture/story/21414.html (http://www.wired.com/news/news/culture/story/21414.html)
I can't fault either company for trying to protect themselves here. Then again, it's interesting to see how much hoopla is stirred up over one Finnish Dude(tm). (http://bbs.hitechcreations.com/smf/Smileys/default/smile.gif)
Andy
(So poor he can't afford FreeHost)
-
Ya sure a hot subject, but I can see why.
I can definately see HiTech and the others point. If the money dissappears from online sims such as WB or AH (a free host would mean no $ per hour customers) their will be finacial incentive to produce, update or support online games. Though we all may really dig flying 80 hours a week for free (debatable weather this would be a good thing or not...hehe) we would kill any WB support or developement. Wanna see a next generation WW2 sim like AH? Well we had better pay then. Its all economics! Besides you wives probably wouldn't let ya fly 80 hours a week anyway....lol (http://bbs.hitechcreations.com/smf/Smileys/default/smile.gif)
Bonger
XO 487th LIL BASTARDS
-
Sheesh...you ain't kiddin. Even when I was flying (for a short time) with VF-17 at 1am Hawaii time, it was "Are you playing that airplane game AGAIN?"
hahahahaha. Thankfully she's pretty tollerant compared to some of the folks I've heard about here and on AGW!
Andy
-
It just seems to me the companies involved here would do best to use their time and resources to work on their code to prevent future incidents like this from occurring, instead of wasting them on litigation. Litigation tends to be a time and money consuming exploit, especially in international cases; not in the best interest of smaller companies.
There is always going to be code-theft, hacking, cracking, etc. Most software companies know this, and realize it is part of doing business. The companies would be best served to create methods of thwarting would-be culprits however, instead of sueing them after the fact.
I suspect a fair amount of saber-rattling as intimidation too here; a cheap and easy way to get a lot of the users to back down.
My analogy is say you owned a store that was robbed. Would you put money into sueing the guy who robbed you, or would you be better served by buying and installing security systems in your store to prevent that guy or the next guy from ripping you off again? If you sued the guy who robbed you, you might recoupe your initial losses, but you can almost bet there's another guy waiting in line to do the same thing to you.
In fact, I was robbed once myself. Someone stole a CD player out of my unlocked car in my garage. Sure it pissed me off, but instead of wasting time and energy chasing the culprits, I opted to prevent the next guy from doing it to me again. I cut my losses; wrote off the CD player, installed an alarm, and put in another CD player, and made sure my doors were locked. Since then I haven't had any problems.
It's a cruel world...
-
"I'm not a lawyer, but I play one on TV"
A couple of points for Cuff.
First:
It would be good if the software companies spent a little more time on prevention. However... (you knew that was coming (http://bbs.hitechcreations.com/smf/Smileys/default/smile.gif)) it's a general rule of thumb that the more secure your data, the longer it takes to use it. When you are programming a high-speed internet game, it a trade off between speed and security. Things are going to get better as bandwidth and machine speed improves, but its always going to effect the throughput.
Second:
As I understand it, not defending your trade mark, Intellectual property, etc, is tantamount to giving them up. If you don’t defend the small ones, you give up your right to defend when a big one comes up.
P.S.
I’m betting that if you were surfing the web and came across a site selling “Cuff's CD player, Now FREE!” You’d do you best to get it back or take legal action against the guy that took it. (http://bbs.hitechcreations.com/smf/Smileys/default/smile.gif)
------------------
Roy "BadMan" McMillion
4th Fighter Group
335th Fighter Squadron "The Chiefs"
Fourth but First!
[This message has been edited by BadMan 4th FG (edited 08-27-1999).]
-
Freehost is theft.
Anyone who uses freehost online is actively
participating in theft.
Itmo designed a program that steals.
Consequently, he is a crook and should be prosecuted to the maximum extent possible under Finnish law.
Anyone who dares to defend freehost must first and foremost acknowledge the fact that he/she is a thief and is not worth listening to in the first place.
Yeager
-
Yeagar is a demagogue.
Anyone who listens to him is actively
participating in propaganda.
Yeagar designed a email that offends.
Consequently, he is a demagogue and should be ignored to the maximum extent possible under any law.
Anyone who dares to defend Yeagar must first and foremost acknowledge the fact that he/she is a demagogue and is not worth listening to in the first place.
-bigred
(p.s. i think freehost is CRAP but your post's tone is EVEN MORE OFFENSIVE)
-
I made my point.
Yeager
[This message has been edited by Yeager (edited 08-27-1999).]
-
Ooh! A good ole fashioned witch hunt! "You *SOUND* guilty, so therefore you MUST be!" Burn him!
-
Alright everybody, calm down....
Geez im NOT defending freehost, but this dabate has nothing to do with "lawfullness or morality" concerning freehost...
Its a hack, its also inevitable and this type of "disease" will afflict EVERY online game ever made.
If anything its only going to spur the developers to design games that truly offer a stimulating longterm gameing experience that CANT be replicated by some yokel-server off in the ukraine.
I an anxously waiting for both AH /Ien/Playnet to all put serious thought into the strat/longterm goals/benefit structures of their products to make sure that any future "freehost" will wither and die on the vine as fast as they are created. (whew...thats a run-on sentence)
In the longrun, it only HELPS us as players that this type of threat is addressed now and not later.
-bigred
no hard feeling yeagar (http://bbs.hitechcreations.com/smf/Smileys/default/smile.gif)
-
I want to state right off the bat that I was really tempted to try FreeHost.
I even took the time to download it.
Gasp!!!!
Have I used it? NO
What changed my mind was Hitechs discussions about the use of freehost and that it was stealing 4 years of his work. Curiosity tempted me into trying it, and reasoning talked me out of it. I personally think that if anyone wants to really preach about the evils of FreeHost, they should just repost some of the comments HT has made.
Calling down evil on some who may be using it are only just firming up trenches on both sides. Curiosity and interesting features of FreeHost may be the reason why some are using it now....instead of anger getting in the way, lets try being reasonable with each other instead of having a flamefest.
-ping- dons his asbestos suit.
Flame away!
-
OTOH....what if you save your version of FreeHo$t somewhere in your hard drive and wait for the faitful day when whoever owns the pay-for-play version of warbirds calls it quits and pulls the plug on the server for good....?
You may now be able to run Warbirds forever....despite what the legitamate owners decide to do with it. You might even say that FreeHo$t immortalized Warbirds and has the chance of keeping it alive for a longer period than a tenous pay-for-play investment scheme.
Anyone seen/played Steel Panthers WWII ? Releasing the game to the creativeness and endless energy and resources of the user base keeps it thriving.
It might be awesome to see what the sim is like in 5 to 10 years.......
Note: I am not now nor have I ever been a FreeHo$t user/owner. I do not agree with or condone stealing/cheating or hacking/reverse engineering. SO GET THEM TORCHES AWAY FROM ME, YOU PRIMITIVE SCREW_HEADS****
**** Phrase "primitive screw-heads" taken without permission from the movie "Army of Darkness".
JHL
JHL
[This message has been edited by Thermo (edited 08-27-1999).]
-
"This... is my BOOM stick!" hahahahah (http://bbs.hitechcreations.com/smf/Smileys/default/smile.gif) Love that flick!
-Andy
(with another totally irrelevant post)
-
(http://www.fix.net/%7Erviar/images/Scan19.jpg)
I've keep my mouth shut on FH till now. At 1st I was impressed by what im-Whatever did.
Well I've had a BIG change of heart. FREEHOST MUST DIE PERIOD. It a threat to WB's, AH, and Playnet. Nuff said.
------------------
Six-pk
450th Bombardment Group (Heavy)
The 'Cottontails'[/b]
-
--- Yeager: ---
Consequently, he is a crook and should be prosecuted to the maximum extent possible under Finnish law.
--- End ---
Let's just post all these funny posts, when with a very good possibility what itmo did was not illegal at all in Finland. You have already convicted him as guilty with out knowing the laws, now that is smart.
//fats
-
Ah hell //fats, Im really sorry to get your dander all fluffed up. I mean itmo is a stand up guy who created a program that lets you fly a pay to play multi-user flight sim for free.
I mean, yeah. Your right, I really have no idea what Finnish law is. I suppose my big mistake was in thinking that theft would be illegal in finland but I am probably all fu#ked up right? Probably.
Oh well, you have your little program now so go on with your bad self.
Yeager
[This message has been edited by Yeager (edited 08-30-1999).]
-
Heheh!!!
Calm down Yeager !
IMO, it doesn't bring any good if we going
to blame players countries here.
It's quite sensitive matter to someone(many) of us, tho...
Janne
-
OK OK OK!! I don't agree on this to 100% (no offence Great WB and AH gods!) I tried the free host a few time (no offence again) and this is what I have to say about it.
1. It took a few hours to set the damn thing up!
2. The connection is quite bad cause you need a friend to set up the host, moast of us still have 56k modems or worse, couldn't fly more then 4 or 5 without BIG warps.
Even if you only flew 2 or 3 there were lots of small warps when you got to a range or -d2.
3. You get tired of it pretty damn quick so I don't think IMOL lost any money on this, I wouldn't have gone online and started flying instead of the freehost if it hadn't been avalible.
That's about all, hmmm, why did I write it? Don't know.
------------------
Rasmus "Wilbus" Mattsson
-
I am a 'demagogue' :-).
I agree with Yeager 100%. Just because there may not be a law on the books doesn't make something 'legal' and right. Hiding behind a loop-hole is lame and pathetic.
val
------------------
Scott (val) Valline
Dweebs of Death
-
What troubles me is HiTechs post on the FH news group where he admitted to hacking AW and using a hacked FE to hunt down other pilots.
Pot calling the kettle black?
-flat-
-
In the hopes of a civil, mature discussion of the subject here goes...
I remember when Compaq reverse engineered the PC BIOS. They took the functionality of the IBM PC BIOS and recreated it in a "clean room." That meant that they had no knowledge of the actual code of the BIOS; only it's function calls and output.
This had to have cost IBM MILLIONS. The end result is that all the PC users have benefitted from this, both in money savings and advancement of the platform.
On to Freehost: Since no one knows for sure how this was created, I'll make some assumptions for the sake of this argument.
IMOL (now iEN) creates a front end program that they give away for free. They allow users to play the game offline for free. They allow head-to-head use for free. In other words there is no requirement therein to pay iEN and use their servers in order to use the front end.
(Now license agreements aside, since IMOL/iEN can write in them whatever they please, and I realize that although they prohibit "reverse-engineering" therein; I suspect that had IBM had such a disclaimer on their original PC box/BIOS, that it still would have made no difference. IBM did in fact have a copyright on their BIOS. For instance the license agreement could prohibit use by one-legged sailors too, but I suspect that would be un-enforcable also.)
Itmo watches the output of the front end and determines what the numbers mean. He writes a host program based on those numbers. He has in effect, reverse-engineered the host program.
(As a side observation, I will postulate that the possible loss of revenue to iEN is miniscule at best. The Freehost program also only functions on an obsolete version of the program.)
So, the question is: does the license agreement hold up here? Is reverse-engineering in this sort of situation legal? The fact that iEN could lose revenue to Freehost (doubtful IMHO) is really not a factor, as the reverse-engineering of the original PC BIOS cost IBM more money than this will ever cost iEN.
Isn't there a fine line (if any) between what Compaq did many years ago (and others have done since then) and this situation?
Rational, civil and mature responses only please. (http://bbs.hitechcreations.com/smf/Smileys/default/smile.gif)
-
Well Cuff, again the disclaimer, I am NOT a stinkin lawyer! (http://bbs.hitechcreations.com/smf/Smileys/default/smile.gif)
As I understand it, the people who are taking apart the software/hardware can have ABSOLUTLY nothing to do with the rewriting/reverse engineering of the original.
What has to happen is one group takes the software/hardware finds out what it does and how it does it, then hands a specification to a second party and says “this is what it does” The second party takes the spec and writes a new spec that says “we want software/hardware that does this.” and gives that spec to a third group of people that make the actual copied software/hardware.
The First group can have NO contact with the Third group.
I’m sure somebody can correct me on any errors I have made.
------------------
Roy "BadMan" McMillion
4th Fighter Group
335th Fighter Squadron "The Chiefs"
Fourth but First!
[This message has been edited by BadMan 4th FG (edited 09-02-1999).]
-
To use your analogy but changing it slight to fit the case lets just change a few things
IBM was charging for the bios but giving away the cumputers as samples to get people to buy the bios and with an agreement that the free computers could only be used with there bios.
Compact makes there own bios and starts shiping them with ibm's computers.
HiTech
-
Badman, you are correct in what you state is the legally "safe" implementation of reverse engineering. The point of it all is to ensure and thereby be able to later prove that no "hacking" of the original code was done.
The proof that the reverse-engineering in the Freehost situation was done legitimately (without hacking) is notably absent.
Hitech, had the Warbirds front end not included the head-to-head and offline options (neither requiring the host subscription); in other words if it did not function in its intended use (as a combat flight simulator) without the host, your analogy would be more accurate. However, in this case, the computer (front end) does indeed function without the BIOS (host).
Similar but different.
[This message has been edited by Cuff (edited 09-02-1999).]
-
This is turning into an interesting intellectual exercise (http://bbs.hitechcreations.com/smf/Smileys/default/smile.gif)
Another example.
You are at a car lot. The dealer tells you can test-drive this car forever, but you can never leave the parking lot. A third guy comes up and says “Go to the grocery store.” Just because the door isn’t locked, doesn’t mean its ok to drive off.
Granted, this one is a little simpler than the Freehost situation, but the principle is the same. No?
P.S.
It breaks my hart to see all of this civil discussion going on. You Whiny Freeloading Simpleton (http://bbs.hitechcreations.com/smf/Smileys/default/smile.gif)
------------------
Roy "BadMan" McMillion
4th Fighter Group
335th Fighter Squadron "The Chiefs"
Fourth but First!
-
Badman, better example but still not quite there. (http://bbs.hitechcreations.com/smf/Smileys/default/smile.gif) It fails to account for the car being used for its real purpose - that of transportation. IMHO it also makes the dealer sound a bit looney and arbitrary... (http://bbs.hitechcreations.com/smf/Smileys/default/wink.gif)
How about this for a Freehost analogy?
A train builder gives away trains for free and says anyone can drive that train (which only rides on special rails) as much as they would like on track B and track C for free transportation but not on track A. (He also adds that he forbids anyone to look at his train to try to figure out how the wheels/rails work or otherwise reverse-engineer it.) If anyone wants to ride on track A, he wants them to pay him an hourly fee. Someone else examines his rail system, figures out how to and builds another track that runs the same route as the track A and offers it to all to use for nothing.
To continue, the train builder wants to sue the guy who put up the other rail line. He says that he forbade anyone to build rails to work with his train (even though years before, another man reverse-engineered another man's product and was not indicted).
Add to it all that the free track can't be destroyed now that it's there.
What is a good course of action for the train builder?
"Guns don't kill people. People kill people."
(Now my head hurts... (http://bbs.hitechcreations.com/smf/Smileys/default/wink.gif) )
P.S. Umm, did anyone else notice this has turned into a Badman/Cuff thread besides me? (http://bbs.hitechcreations.com/smf/Smileys/default/wink.gif)
[This message has been edited by Cuff (edited 09-03-1999).]
-
My problem with Hitechs analogy is teh bit that says
"with an agreement that the free computers could only be used with their bios"
Where does the free WB download stipulate a similar clause ? (Im not saying there is not one but I have not seen it).
It seems to me a more fitting analogy is
"We have invented a telephone. We will give it to you for free and you can plug it into someone elses and talk to them as much as you want without charge. However if you want to be able to talk to the world you need to go through our unique switchboard system and we will charge you" Along comes a Finnish company that says "we also have a switchboard system and even though it works in a different way to the other system it still allows your free phone to connect to the world. We give it away free but we do not support it and it only works on obselete phones that do not work on the paying switchboard and only allows 32 connections instead of hundreds"
Is that accurate ?
Roblex
-
Hay, no fair! Now I have to start thinking!
Two reasons why I still think my analogy works.
1) The real use of the car is transportation (Flying On–Line) can only be done of you give the dealer money. The Test Drive is limited to just the parking lot (head to head/offline)
2) By taking the car off the lot with out giving the dealer money, (even if you bring the car back) you are stealing the car.
Although I will admit the train thing works a little better. (http://bbs.hitechcreations.com/smf/Smileys/default/smile.gif) But you left out the part where the Guy with the second set of tracks sends it out to the world so that now anybody mind to can set up a set of tracks to run the special trains.
As for the course of action, I think the only way to protect your train system is to seak legal action against the people setting up these second rail systems. They are, after all, in violation of the users agreement that accepted when they got thier trains. Sure, it’s difficult to pursue this course of action, and there is no real way get back any financual losses, but as I said earlyer. If you don’t fight the little ones (freehost), you give up your right to fight the big ones. (mithacal russian super host)
To continue, the train builder wants to sue the guy who put up the other rail line. He says that he forbade anyone to build rails to work with his train (even though years before, another man reverse-engineered another man's product and was not indicted).
I have never been sure this is completely analogous or relevant to the situation. None of the programming HT did for AW allowed people to play outside of the AW servers. Nor is reasonable to assume that WB is a direct product of the work done on AW. Knowledge was certainly gained while HT was doing his voodoo on AW, but the end result of WB is a completely different animal. It’s kind of like saying that If I work for a company and learn while I’m on the job, I can’t quit and start my own company and use some of the skills I learned.
Roblex: (Oh, god…Now I have to think twice as hard) The analogy is a good one. But you have to admit. If you agree not to use any switchbox but the one provided by the phone guy, and you go ahead and do it any way. Aren’t you doing something bad? Even if it’s an old version, how many people will stop paying money or never start paying money because that can now get it for free?
And BTW. Itmo is still supporting and programming Freehost.
Ugh...Must stop thinking....brain over loaded...neurons breaking down…need coffee… (http://bbs.hitechcreations.com/smf/Smileys/default/smile.gif)
------------------
Roy "BadMan" McMillion
4th Fighter Group
335th Fighter Squadron "The Chiefs"
Fourth but First!
[This message has been edited by BadMan 4th FG (edited 09-03-1999).]
-
Good God ! I don't know about copywrite's and stuff but I have seen how patents work and the one thing I have seen is this.
Take a design and patent it. then a competitor comes and changes one thing and go's out a sells it. can you sue? yes. can you win ? maybe, will it cost you ? oh baby will it, win or lose in court, you still lose, it's a bummer but the truth, now you can apeal to the honest customers to stay with your product. some will and some won't, IMHO ,HT, keep doing what your doing and the rest of us loyal customers will support you for aslong as the product performs.
Guns out.
-
Toughgun got it all right.
There will allways be someone trying to copy what you are doing. If you got a patent you are "safe", but anyone can reverse engineer as much as they want as long as it does not infringe the patent. To my knowledge there is no *legal* issues about reverse engineering, unless this is either an infringement to the patent, or as a *signed* agreement with both parties, (a signed agreement of confinentiality). If they make infringement to the patent you can sue them, but it costs no matter how you look at it or what the outcome is.
The point is that you have showed all the customers that you can do it, you were first, you are the leader, and that is what matter to most of the customers and that is what most of them are paying for as well: the number one, regardless of patents, copyrights or agreements.
I have also minimal knowledge about copyright stuff in specific, but i know that most people stick to the number one, only as long as it is the number one. The only way to be number one is to keep on doing what you are doing.
Nothing in the world can protect you if you try to sleep on your previous merits instead of continuing developing.
Personally i have difficulties to see the whole free host issue as nothing more than simple vandalism or just an act of an immature person, since mr itmo is not in to it for the money, but that's only my own opinion.
As long as you are number one there is nothing to be afraid of. This goes for both the host/service as the FE of cource.
Bod
-
Intersting quip back there.....
"...It’s kind of like saying that If I work for a company and learn while I’m on the job, I can’t quit and start my own company and use some of the skills I learned...."
Most companies require engineers to sign such agreements as a pre-requisiste for employment. The agreement often goes further by the company laying claim to _anything_ that the engineer dreams up weather related to the company business or not, weather on or off the clock.
Also, often as terms of separation some companies require non-competitve agreements, whereby the engineer agrees not to start up a related business for a certain term.
JHL
-
Just rember the freehost issue is not about Rev Eng , or learning, or compitition.
It's about copywrite law of using a piece of software outside it's licensing agreement.If some want's to write both a FE and Host based on Rev Eng the communication format that would be normal rev eng. It's not protecting knowledge that's the issue. The issue is using someone elses FE with a diffenent host.
HiTech
-
There will allways be someone trying to copy what you are doing. If you got a patent you are "safe", but anyone can reverse engineer as much as they want as long as it does not infringe the patent. To my knowledge there is no *legal* issues about reverse engineering, unless this is either an infringement to the patent, or as a *signed* agreement with both parties, (a signed agreement of confinentiality). If they make infringement to the patent you can sue them, but it costs no matter how you look at it or what the outcome is.
Copyright and Patents are two very different things.
Patents protect ideas. You get a patent on post-it notes and you can sue people who manufacture self-stick notepads. Even if they invented their notepads independently and without knowledge of post-its.
Copyright protects expression. To infringe a copyright you must actually copy the original work. Thus, in the unlikely event that two people independently wrote the same novel, there would be no infringement if neither copied the other.
Copyright encompasses a number of rights including the rights to: reproduce, distribute, create derivative works, display and performance. A copyright owner can license those rights to others and the license can be carved up into very specific rights.
Have you ever noticed the notice at the beginning of a video tape that you rent saying that it is for home use and not public display? That's the copyright owner protecting his/her display rights. If you show that video tape in a theatre, you're liable for infringement.
Note that almost every piece of software you think you own is actually licensed. A licensor can restrict the use of that licesne. While there is some debate on the enforceability of "shrink wrap" licenses, reasonable restrictions are likely to be enforced, particularly if the software is provided without charge.
If a license restricts reverse engineering and you use your copy of the software for that purpose, you violate your license (some countries will not enforce a reverse engineering restriction). It's not that there is a general ban on reverse engineering, it's whether you had the right to use the software to begin with.
There is also an issue of contributory infringement. Does a freehost permit (an in fact encourage) the use of client software in a manner inconsistent with its license? If so, the creator of such software could be liable for contributory infringement.
I'm not sure that the analogies that have been offered are helpful because copyright law is a world unto itself. However, consider the following: A company publishes a book for $34.95. Another company, let's say Xerox, develops a device that allows people to create their own copies of the book for substantially less than $34.95. Should Xerox be liable when people make these cheap copies? Probably not. But what if Xerox's machine was useful for copying only that book and served no other purpose. Well that's a different story.
Rolo
-
Thanks for the explanation rolo.
Patents protect ideas. You get a patent on post-it notes and you can sue people who manufacture self-stick notepads. Even if they invented their notepads independently and without knowledge of post-its
This is not enterely right. Patents protects the inventors commersial interrests in an invention. It has to be a genuinly new idea to be patentable; a usable invention, and not only an obvious and/or unusable thing. Everyone can make as many copies as they want by using the "blue-prints", but you are not allow to sell them as stand alone units or as a part of something else.
Software are not patentable in general, since they are either some formulation of scientific principles or some abstract thing. However, software written for the purpose of making a specific car engine run, for instance, is also patentable since it is obviosly a part of the engine itself. The driver routines for a printer may be patentable, and also the bios code in a PC. (I guess IBM's mistake was that they patented the chip and/or the code, but not the interface, or only copyrighted the code).
For the example of the printer driver for a newly developed printer. If the code is copyright, you can joyfully reverse engineer your own drivers, and sell them (considering no license agreement). If it is patented, and it is a good patent (http://bbs.hitechcreations.com/smf/Smileys/default/smile.gif) , you can copy and hack with the driver-code as much as you want, but you can not sell, or give away *anything* that can be used to drive the printer.
So, the obvious solution is that HiTech et al. make and patent a *hardware* "host computer bank" that does only two things: Serve as the only functional host for the FE's, and bills peoples credit cards. This server cannot operate without the FE. (http://bbs.hitechcreations.com/smf/Smileys/default/wink.gif)
Woops, just by Writing that in a public place like this board i make it impossible for anyone (including me) to get such a patent approoved. Not that it was such a good one (http://bbs.hitechcreations.com/smf/Smileys/default/smile.gif)
Bod
-
This is not enterely right. Patents protects the inventors commersial interrests in an invention. It has to be a genuinly new idea to be patentable; a usable invention, and not only an obvious and/or unusable thing. Everyone can make as many copies as they want by using the "blue-prints", but you are not allow to sell them as stand alone units or as a part of something else.
For general purposes, that is an accurate description.
Software are not patentable in general
That used to be the case, but it isn't anymore. The PTO is now granting a significant number of software patents.
If the code is copyright, you can joyfully reverse engineer your own drivers, and sell them (considering no license agreement).
Assuming that you are doing true reverse engineering and not copying any code, this is probably true (again assuming no license against reverse engineering).
If it is patented, and it is a good patent , you can copy and hack with the driver-code as much as you want, but you can not sell, or give away *anything* that can be used to drive the printer.
Unlikely, as it would be impossible to divorce the driver from its underlying copyright. Under the copyright act of 1976, copyright attached automatically even if the copyright is not registered.
Woops, just by Writing that in a public place like this board i make it impossible for anyone (including me) to get such a patent approoved. Not that it was such a good one.
The fact that such systems already exist probably makes a better case against patentability. <G>
Rolo
[This message has been edited by Rolo (edited 09-05-1999).]
-
That used to be the case, but it isn't anymore. The PTO is now granting a significant number of software patents.
I know, but does not the software need to attached or used together with a spesific hardware device? Ten years ago there were not much software in a car engine or a TV set. Today these devises together with all kinds of other hardware devises (not to mention all the devices in planes) are literary packed with chips and software. This kind of software has only one function, and that is to make the device work as planned. Take the software out, and it does not work, as planned, or as described in any eventual patent.
A PC does not need a word processor to work, or more precisely; A word processor is not an integral part of a PC. Therefore it is not possible to patent a word processor-software that is to be used on a normal PC. The BIOS in the PC on the other hand is a typical piece of software that can be patented (too late know, but in general terms).
Also these pieces of software tends to be very generic in the way they are patented. It is often not the software itself that are patented (the code itself), but some idea of using software (embedded or othervise) as part of a process to make something possible that would not be possible without the use of software. By *not* making it generic you would restrain yourself very much, which is very often not a particularly good idea.
Unlikely, as it would be impossible to divorce the driver from its underlying copyright. Under the copyright act of 1976, copyright attached automatically even if the copyright is not registered.
I'm sure you are right, but i was only trying to show that you don't do any infringement to the patent.
The fact that such systems already exist probably makes a better case against patentability.
They do?
Bod
-
I only just found this thread, but I had to put in my 2 cents. Warbirds has to be the only game where you can spend $1000.00 and yet have the company deny you the right of offline play. I can play Quake2 or 3 as much as I like, yet I only EVER paid $70 to ID co.
Yeager raves on about stealing.... the only theft is that I pay (and still pay) so MUCH money for Warbirds. If itmo ran a sever with 100 players then I would be upset. But letting four people play h2h with each other for free it not stealing at all. More like wetting ones appritite for online fun.
I fly WB for the BIG TIME community action. I'll be looking foward to the same in Aces High.
-
Time to let this die.
I am a chef. I have been on national tv.
Our restaurant is famous for an old family cheese sauce recipe. Everyone who has worked for me and even my past employers have "copied" the recipes! They have it, they try to promote it, BUT ITS NEVER GOING TO BE THEIRS. Thats why it never is successful for them.
I will follow hi-tech to AH because he WAS-IS
Warbirds as I found it and enjoyed it.
Its his direction of the "Ideal Sim" that makes them what they are. Copies will only die.
So, who gives a rat about outdated version freehosts. Lets cheer on the guys who got us hooked and make us HAPPY to pay them money so we can enjoy the "Fruits of their visions and talents". Enough
-
Amen Dakota!
This subject is really needless...
Janne
-
To all freehost folks...Have fun and guilt ridden flying...
To Dakota...man your just as much of a stand up guy here as you are online in WB..
I salute you ....I will continue to highlight you while flying so watch out for you...bet you never knew you had a gaurdian angel...
------------------
The 44TH SOS...If Ya See Us....IT'S TOO LATE!!!!
-
i second that thought.
he really summed it up.
and by the way lawyers dont decide anything any more than a librarian writes books. people and judges do.at least thet is what the contitution says