Matthew_Eric_Seitz@cup.portal.com (09/18/89)
I seem to remember reading an article a couple of months back by John Dvorak stating that Software Enhancements Associates (SEA) had won its lawsuit against Phil Katz's PKWARE Corp. for violating its copyright on ARC by publishing PKARC. As I understood it, the judge ruled that it was illegal for a company to produce a program which produced files using the ARC compression algorithm or that had a .ARC extension. Nothing was mentioned about the legality of programs that uncompress SEA ARC files. Could anyone provide me with further details of the case and the final ruling? What are the implications for other "clone" programs that create data files compatible with other programs? Matthew Seitz Matthew_Eric_Seitz@cup.portal.com
scjones@sdrc.UUCP (Larry Jones) (09/20/89)
In article <22255@cup.portal.com>, Matthew_Eric_Seitz@cup.portal.com writes: > > I seem to remember reading an article a couple of months back by > John Dvorak stating that Software Enhancements Associates (SEA) had won its > lawsuit against Phil Katz's PKWARE Corp. for violating its copyright on > ARC by publishing PKARC. As I understood it, the judge ruled that it was > illegal for a company to produce a program which produced files using the ARC > compression algorithm or that had a .ARC extension. Nothing was mentioned > about the legality of programs that uncompress SEA ARC files. > > Could anyone provide me with further details of the case and the > final ruling? What are the implications for other "clone" programs that > create data files compatible with other programs? There was no final ruling, SEA and PKWARE agreed to a settlement (the net result of which was that SEA got everything they wanted and PKWARE got nothing). SEA does claim exclusive rights to both the ARC file format and extension, but they issued a blanket license to anyone except Phil Katz and PKWARE to use them at no charge. As I understand it, the reason that PKWARE gave in is that SEA subpoenaed the PKARC source code and careful examination of the parts that had not been rewritten in assember showed them to be identical to ARC, including the SEA copyright statements! Thus, I would not interpret the settlement to be any sort of blanket endorsement of SEA's claims. I would say that the only implications for other clone programs is to make sure they really are clones and not just copies, and be prepared for a lawsuit. DISCLAIMER: I'm not a lawyer. I think trying to claim exclusive rights to file formats and extensions is just plain silly. ---- Larry Jones UUCP: uunet!sdrc!scjones SDRC scjones@SDRC.UU.NET 2000 Eastman Dr. BIX: ltl Milford, OH 45150-2789 AT&T: (513) 576-2070 "I have plenty of good sense. I just choose to ignore it." -Calvin
katz@csd4.csd.uwm.edu (Phillip W Katz) (09/24/89)
In article <816@sdrc.UUCP> scjones@sdrc.UUCP (Larry Jones) writes: >In article <22255@cup.portal.com>, Matthew_Eric_Seitz@cup.portal.com writes: >> >> I seem to remember reading an article a couple of months back by >>John Dvorak stating that Software Enhancements Associates (SEA) had won its >>lawsuit against Phil Katz's PKWARE Corp. for violating its copyright on >>ARC by publishing PKARC. As I understood it, the judge ruled that it was >>illegal for a company to produce a program which produced files using the ARC >>compression algorithm or that had a .ARC extension. Nothing was mentioned >>about the legality of programs that uncompress SEA ARC files. >> >> Could anyone provide me with further details of the case and the >>final ruling? What are the implications for other "clone" programs that >>create data files compatible with other programs? > >There was no final ruling, SEA and PKWARE agreed to a settlement >(the net result of which was that SEA got everything they wanted >and PKWARE got nothing). SEA does claim exclusive rights to both >the ARC file format and extension, but they issued a blanket >license to anyone except Phil Katz and PKWARE to use them at no >charge. > >As I understand it, the reason that PKWARE gave in is that SEA >subpoenaed the PKARC source code and careful examination of the >parts that had not been rewritten in assember showed them to be >identical to ARC, including the SEA copyright statements! Thus, >I would not interpret the settlement to be any sort of blanket >endorsement of SEA's claims. I would say that the only >implications for other clone programs is to make sure they really >are clones and not just copies, and be prepared for a lawsuit. > >DISCLAIMER: I'm not a lawyer. I think trying to claim exclusive >rights to file formats and extensions is just plain silly. Well, this was definitely NOT the case!! You are correct in saying that there was no judgement, as an out of court settlement was mutually agreed to by both parties. However, your last statement is completely false. SEA did hire an "expert" to testify on their behalf, but their "expert" did not give any testimony of any sort until AFTER the settlement was reached. After the settlement SEA filed a contempt motion against PKWARE, claiming that even though we changed the names of the programs from PKARC and PKXARC to PKPAK and PKUNPAK, the fact that they read ".ARC" files and had the string ".ARC" embedded in the programs still violated their alleged trademark. In this contempt motion, their "expert" did state that in his opinion he thought that the PKARC/PKXARC code was derived from SEA's code, but provided no evidence to this affect. However, the Judge found PKWARE's testimony credible, and ruled in favor of PKWARE, and in fact awarded PKWARE damages from SEA as a result of their contempt motion. While I hate to dig up dead issues yet again, it is important to get the story straight here. Phil Katz PKWARE, Inc. Voice: 414-352-3670 FAX: 414-352-3815 PKWARE BBS: 414-352-7176 US MAIL: 7545 N. Port Washington Rd., Glendale, WI 53217