OpenChess

syzygy wrote:So how would all of that lead to the ICGA "sleeping on its rights"? That just can't be the legal term you're looking for.

From this page titled "The Risk of Sleeping on Your Patent Rights":

The doctrine of laches is an equitable remedy subject to a Court’s discretion and dependent upon the particular facts of each case. To prove laches a defendant needs to demonstrate that the plaintiff unreasonable and inexcusable delayed asserting an infringement claim, as well as also showing prejudice or injury to the defendant resulting from the delay. With respect to the first prong, a patent owner’s delay in filing suit is measured from the time infringement is discovered, or should have been discovered, until the time suit is filed. In determining whether a party has too long “slept on its rights” it is necessary to show that the party knew or should have known that it had a right of action, yet did not act to assert or protect its rights.

There is no reason why the ICGA "should have discovered" these issues much earlier.

Regarding the lost source code, surely Vas could have come up with something. If not the exact version of the source code used to produce the executables that entered the tournaments, then at least something reasonably close to it.

Something reasonably close to it would have no value. Suppose that they looked at the code and decided it did not infringe. But then they compiled it and saw that the output was different. Well, this code seems fine, but what about the code from the contest? We have no idea if it infringed or not. So if he did not have the exact original code that produces identical log files then there is no way that it could exonerate him. Also recall that it was many years later that they asked for it. If all he had was Rybka 3 code, then what good will that do?

User923005 wrote:

orgfert wrote:

User923005 wrote:

lmader wrote:

User923005 wrote: While in principle, I agree that it may sometimes be possible to detect copyright infringement from examination of binary executables, in general, I think that this should really just be used to get the subpoena to view the actual source rather than to form some kind of decision. After all, we *do not have* the original source code. If there were huge clumps that were identical (and these clumps contain more than the standard library code and other public sources) then it would be reasonable to conclude that infringement is exceedingly likely. I do not think that we have that in this case.

I definitely disagree with this. The amount of evidence brought forward in the Rybka/Fruit report was, IMO, more than enough for it to be "reasonable to conclude that infringement is exceedingly likely" and therefore to "get the subpoena", which is effectively what the ICGA did. They demanded that Vas show the source, or at least respond with an explanation. He refused.

The one voice in favor of Vas (Chris Whittington) was rejected from the panel.

Hmmm. I think this is true in the same sense that it's "true" Bobby Fischer was "excluded" from the 1975 world championship. IOW, if Chris had really wanted to be on the panel, he'd have been on it.

Chris asked to be on the panel.
He was refused.
So you are wrong.

With Chris things are never that simple, and you know it. If you want to ignore those details (in which resides the devil), you can't expect your points carry the weight you imply they have among those who know better.

User923005 wrote:

User923005 wrote:Vas offered the explanation that he lost his source code.
I have seen Dr. Robert Hyatt ask for lost versions of crafty source code, so it is not absurd that someone should lost such a thing.

The big difference is that Bob has never been suspected of cloning and therefore had no self-interested reason to "lose" his code.

And yet he lost it.
I have lost code before.
I guess that everyone who has been programming for more than 10 years has lost code at some point in time.

That's putting things in the best light, and most people already recognize the possibility. But one is not duty bound to consider it the only one, nor even the most likely one in light of his proven pattern of copying without acknowledgement.

User923005 wrote:

User923005 wrote:If they had asked immediately after the contest, I think he would logically have been able to produce the code at that time or he would clearly have been in violation of the agreement.
But the ICGA slept on their rights for years and then made the request. I do not think Vas was unreasonable.
The process that convicted him, on the other hand, was entirely unreasonable.

The notion that the ICGA slept looks like spin rather than objective characterization. They didn't know about any credible evidence until years later. That's not sleeping.

I suggest you look up the legal definition of "slept on their rights".

Ok. And what makes you think they dilly-dallied once they were made aware of the evidence? They didn't, so the term is malapropo, isn't it?

User923005 wrote:

User923005 wrote:Keep in mind that I do not claim Vas was innocent and have never made that claim at any point in time.

orgfert wrote:

User923005 wrote:

orgfert wrote:

User923005 wrote:

lmader wrote:

User923005 wrote: While in principle, I agree that it may sometimes be possible to detect copyright infringement from examination of binary executables, in general, I think that this should really just be used to get the subpoena to view the actual source rather than to form some kind of decision. After all, we *do not have* the original source code. If there were huge clumps that were identical (and these clumps contain more than the standard library code and other public sources) then it would be reasonable to conclude that infringement is exceedingly likely. I do not think that we have that in this case.

I definitely disagree with this. The amount of evidence brought forward in the Rybka/Fruit report was, IMO, more than enough for it to be "reasonable to conclude that infringement is exceedingly likely" and therefore to "get the subpoena", which is effectively what the ICGA did. They demanded that Vas show the source, or at least respond with an explanation. He refused.

The one voice in favor of Vas (Chris Whittington) was rejected from the panel.

Hmmm. I think this is true in the same sense that it's "true" Bobby Fischer was "excluded" from the 1975 world championship. IOW, if Chris had really wanted to be on the panel, he'd have been on it.

Chris asked to be on the panel.
He was refused.
So you are wrong.

With Chris things are never that simple, and you know it. If you want to ignore those details (in which resides the devil), you can't expect your points carry the weight you imply they have among those who know better.

Yes, Chris can whinge with the best of them. But he wanted to join and was told to go away and he was the only one willing to point out positives for the accused. I see a problem with that. Don't you?

User923005 wrote:

User923005 wrote:Vas offered the explanation that he lost his source code.
I have seen Dr. Robert Hyatt ask for lost versions of crafty source code, so it is not absurd that someone should lost such a thing.

The big difference is that Bob has never been suspected of cloning and therefore had no self-interested reason to "lose" his code.

And yet he lost it.
I have lost code before.
I guess that everyone who has been programming for more than 10 years has lost code at some point in time.

That's putting things in the best light, and most people already recognize the possibility. But one is not duty bound to consider it the only one, nor even the most likely one in light of his proven pattern of copying without acknowledgement.

I am pretty well convinced that Vas lied about the 1.6.1 beta to a beta tester. But I do not think that means everything he says is a lie. I know that Vas is despised by many (most?) chess programmers. Personally, I think some of the things he does are quite distasteful, but that does not mean he should be unfairly railroaded and slandered.

User923005 wrote:

User923005 wrote:If they had asked immediately after the contest, I think he would logically have been able to produce the code at that time or he would clearly have been in violation of the agreement.
But the ICGA slept on their rights for years and then made the request. I do not think Vas was unreasonable.
The process that convicted him, on the other hand, was entirely unreasonable.

The notion that the ICGA slept looks like spin rather than objective characterization. They didn't know about any credible evidence until years later. That's not sleeping.

I suggest you look up the legal definition of "slept on their rights".

Ok. And what makes you think they dilly-dallied once they were made aware of the evidence? They didn't, so the term is malapropo, isn't it?

Perhaps the legal term is not quite right. I would say, instead, that the statue of limitations has run out on the request for his code.

User923005 wrote:

User923005 wrote:Keep in mind that I do not claim Vas was innocent and have never made that claim at any point in time.

Vas may have done something bad in connection with the ICGA events. I am unconvinced one way or the other. He probably did something bad with the Rybka 1.6.1 beta, I am pretty well convinced of that (but the ICGA was not involved in that).

However, I am entirely convinced that what was done to Vas is far worse than anything he might possibly have done in connection with the ICGA events.

The thing I find most disturbing is that the prosecutors feel no remorse and think everything they did was right when it seems so utterly unreasonable to me.

It seems to me that everyone has simply lost the facility for conscience or perhaps the ability to reexamine the process that took place to see that it was horribly wrong.

User923005 wrote:

orgfert wrote:

User923005 wrote:

orgfert wrote:

User923005 wrote:

lmader wrote:

User923005 wrote: While in principle, I agree that it may sometimes be possible to detect copyright infringement from examination of binary executables, in general, I think that this should really just be used to get the subpoena to view the actual source rather than to form some kind of decision. After all, we *do not have* the original source code. If there were huge clumps that were identical (and these clumps contain more than the standard library code and other public sources) then it would be reasonable to conclude that infringement is exceedingly likely. I do not think that we have that in this case.

I definitely disagree with this. The amount of evidence brought forward in the Rybka/Fruit report was, IMO, more than enough for it to be "reasonable to conclude that infringement is exceedingly likely" and therefore to "get the subpoena", which is effectively what the ICGA did. They demanded that Vas show the source, or at least respond with an explanation. He refused.

The one voice in favor of Vas (Chris Whittington) was rejected from the panel.

Hmmm. I think this is true in the same sense that it's "true" Bobby Fischer was "excluded" from the 1975 world championship. IOW, if Chris had really wanted to be on the panel, he'd have been on it.

Chris asked to be on the panel.
He was refused.
So you are wrong.

With Chris things are never that simple, and you know it. If you want to ignore those details (in which resides the devil), you can't expect your points carry the weight you imply they have among those who know better.

Yes, Chris can whinge with the best of them. But he wanted to join and was told to go away and he was the only one willing to point out positives for the accused. I see a problem with that. Don't you?

Chris has never been one to play well with others, so I must say no, I don't. The only thing that prevented his being on the panel in the first place is his talent (in which he takes particular delight) for pissing people off.

I would go so far as to predict that had he not insisted upon being refused with so much drama and ado, he would have behaved according to his usual pattern, in that if he didn't succeed in persuading the majority to his view, he would ensure his proxies would make a stink with details mysteriously obtained from private deliberations and his own whispering campaigns of alleged malfeasance. That's just my opinion, though it is based on past performance.

User923005 wrote:

User923005 wrote:

User923005 wrote:Vas offered the explanation that he lost his source code.
I have seen Dr. Robert Hyatt ask for lost versions of crafty source code, so it is not absurd that someone should lost such a thing.

The big difference is that Bob has never been suspected of cloning and therefore had no self-interested reason to "lose" his code.

And yet he lost it.
I have lost code before.
I guess that everyone who has been programming for more than 10 years has lost code at some point in time.

That's putting things in the best light, and most people already recognize the possibility. But one is not duty bound to consider it the only one, nor even the most likely one in light of his proven pattern of copying without acknowledgement.

I am pretty well convinced that Vas lied about the 1.6.1 beta to a beta tester. But I do not think that means everything he says is a lie. I know that Vas is despised by many (most?) chess programmers. Personally, I think some of the things he does are quite distasteful, but that does not mean he should be unfairly railroaded and slandered.

His having lied about 1.6.1 and his continued refusal to come clean about it absolves us from the obligation of assuming he's lilly white when it comes to what followed. Tinkering with crafty proved mostly unproductive to his ends, keeping only what he learned of bit-boards. The Watkins investigation shows that he moved on to a stronger baseline system (converted to bit-board), obfuscating the engine output in the process to avoid suspicion (at least one struggles to imagine any another motive). I'm not sure why everyone should feel obligated to pretend they were born yesterday in evaluating these facts. In that light, the loss of the source code seems an all-too-happy accident.

User923005 wrote:

User923005 wrote:

User923005 wrote:If they had asked immediately after the contest, I think he would logically have been able to produce the code at that time or he would clearly have been in violation of the agreement.
But the ICGA slept on their rights for years and then made the request. I do not think Vas was unreasonable.
The process that convicted him, on the other hand, was entirely unreasonable.

The notion that the ICGA slept looks like spin rather than objective characterization. They didn't know about any credible evidence until years later. That's not sleeping.

I suggest you look up the legal definition of "slept on their rights".

Ok. And what makes you think they dilly-dallied once they were made aware of the evidence? They didn't, so the term is malapropo, isn't it?

Perhaps the legal term is not quite right. I would say, instead, that the statue of limitations has run out on the request for his code.

That's why it looked like spin to me. The suggestion of a statute of limitations (where none has been specified) is certainly consistent with casting things in the most favorable light and applying the maximum of leniency (just in case he's innocent). But the evidence so far suggests (to me at least) that this is not appropriate for the established pattern of the accused.

User923005 wrote:It seems to me that everyone has simply lost the facility for conscience or perhaps the ability to reexamine the process that took place to see that it was horribly wrong.

I think I have a pretty strong conscience and sense of justice, so based on those choices I must suffer from the latter ("...lost ... the ability to reexamine the process that took place to see that it was horribly wrong").

I just don't agree that the process was wrong or unfair. I also don't agree that the Rybka 1.6.1 evidence was misused. This may just be an area where we can't agree, although I try to remain open to the arguments. I just haven't heard any arguments against the process that hold up. I think that there is a perception that everyone involved had a grudge against Vas, or had commercial interests, etc., and were therefore biased and unfair. There may have been some people that felt this way but I am certain that most didn't. Additionally, there were some pretty iconic luminaries involved, such as Ken Thompson, who are beyond reproach. Finally, even if their evidence isn't iron clad, I think the ICGA had enough to ask Vas for explanation. His lack of cooperation left them with little choice. Ultimately, for a small chess organization trying to enforce its rules, I think they did a very good job of being diligent and fair.

And in all of this, remember that Vas _was_ given the opportunity to get involved. I think his utter lack of participation in trying to exonerate himself is quite telling.

Imagine that you have a chess program that you know is clean, and you are about to be accused of cheating. Would you just ignore it and let the verdict come down, or would you fight like hell to clear your good name? Remember, you know you're innocent.

lmader wrote:

User923005 wrote:It seems to me that everyone has simply lost the facility for conscience or perhaps the ability to reexamine the process that took place to see that it was horribly wrong.

I think I have a pretty strong conscience and sense of justice, so based on those choices I must suffer from the latter ("...lost ... the ability to reexamine the process that took place to see that it was horribly wrong").

I just don't agree that the process was wrong or unfair. I also don't agree that the Rybka 1.6.1 evidence was misused. This may just be an area where we can't agree, although I try to remain open to the arguments. I just haven't heard any arguments against the process that hold up. I think that there is a perception that everyone involved had a grudge against Vas, or had commercial interests, etc., and were therefore biased and unfair. There may have been some people that felt this way but I am certain that most didn't. Additionally, there were some pretty iconic luminaries involved, such as Ken Thompson, who are beyond reproach. Finally, even if their evidence isn't iron clad, I think the ICGA had enough to ask Vas for explanation. His lack of cooperation left them with little choice. Ultimately, for a small chess organization trying to enforce its rules, I think they did a very good job of being diligent and fair.

And in all of this, remember that Vas _was_ given the opportunity to get involved. I think his utter lack of participation in trying to exonerate himself is quite telling.

Imagine that you have a chess program that you know is clean, and you are about to be accused of cheating. Would you just ignore it and let the verdict come down, or would you fight like hell to clear your good name? Remember, you know you're innocent.

I am not arguing for the innocense of Vas.
I am not arguing that the accusers have no good points.
I do see all of the things that they say, and the arguments are not absurd.

However, I don't think that the way the process was handled was a good process.
Maybe part of the problem is that none of us (including those on the panel) are experts in intellectual property law. Perhaps if we really knew what was definitely right and wrong with certainty then the outcome would be more clear.

I have problems with the makeup of the panel. Even though I do not think that the men tried to slant the verdict, here are some problems with it:
1. The panel consisted of people who were chiefly his competitors.
2. Some of the panel members clearly did not and do not like Vas. {Whether he is a likeable guy or not should not have a bearing on this}
3. His reverse engineered binary was published. I think that this was probably illegal. The team that is trying to correct a wrong should not do a wrong themselves in the process.
Even if everyone was totally open minded this panel makeup would be bad because it *looks* bad. If GM, Chevy and Ford found Chrysler guilty of something, and Chrysler was severely punished for it, it would not smell right.

I have some problems with the findings themselves. Every single person on that panel has taken things from Fruit and put it into their code. Does any of them have a program that does not use LMR? Perhaps Vas took more than they did, and they simply did not like it. By reverse engineering of a binary, if the match is only approximate that says to me "we have the same algorithm". The findings clearly state that Vas stole code. I do not think it was proven.

At any rate, I am really simply banging my head against a wall here, because nobody moves their position one micron.
So it is time for me to go back under my rock and stay there.

User923005 wrote: At any rate, I am really simply banging my head against a wall here, because nobody moves their position one micron.
So it is time for me to go back under my rock and stay there.

I understand the frustration. People have been going round and round on this one for quite some time.

However I for one have appreciated your input and arguments. You've done a great job of conducting your discussion in a very civil manner, which has been a real problem in most of the conversations.

Although I don't necessarily agree with your position, your arguments have certainly made me think.

So I would hope that you hold off on completely abandoning the discussion. It appears to be the nature of this beast that it requires a seemingly endless amount of rehashing. And In the end it may be that no one changes their mind, but hopefully people will have clearer and better reasons for their own position.

Cheers.

User923005 wrote: In that case, those CCT events may have been harmed in some way if in fact those versions were infringing. However, the ICGA findings should be related to versions that participated in ICGA events.
CCT findings should be related to versions that participate in CCT events. I do not think that the ICGA should punish Vas for something he did in a CCT event or in someone's basement contest.

Vas made a statement to the ICGA concerning (a) ALL old versions were original and (b) his development was "incremental". Seems perfectly reasonable to take the very few statements he made, and test their accuracy.

we found

(1) Pre-fruit versions of Rybka were NOT original, and were, in fact, complete copies of Crafty;

(2) His development was NOT incremental, because the search and eval was completely replaced between Rybka 1.6.1 and Rybka 1.0beta. That kind of "pattern of behavior" has been used in many trials in the US and elsewhere...

You forget to mention all version publicly released are/were original. What he does with never released private 1.6.1 version which he used for scientific purposes, that you and ICGA obtained in illegal way is completely irrelevant, because that version was not supposed to be shared to the public Rybka versions released to the public don't contain any of the Crafty code. If one looks at the open source engines to try and create his own ( implementation of ideas) that doesn't make him a copycat does it ?
Isn't this exactly what all other commerciall authors are doing with open source Robbo ? Some of them even went so far to plagiarize Robbo for commercial purposes, and yet we haven't seen any complain from you or ICGA on this matter. in fact there is absolutely nothing you can do about it, to prevent these things from happening. Genie is out of the bottle. ICGA is run by a bunch of hypocrats for their own selfish purposes, as long as it benefits their own means.