jcmorris@mbunix.mitre.org (Joseph C. Morris) (06/01/89)
The ARC wars have been discussed in this forum ever since the original
SEA complaint was filed. In the meantime much bandwidth has been used
to discuss the issues involved (with various flame heights); the postings
have included everything from personal observations to copies of the
formal pleadings and decisions.
The dispute has now started to appear in legal journals as background
information regarding the evolution of new legal theories and precedents.
The following material will appear in the September 1989 issue of
_Legal_Economics_ in the column "Technology Update" (pp 14 ff) by G.
Burgess Allison. He is discussing the development of the so-called
"intellectual property" cases now in the courts or likely to find their
way there.
Used with the permission of the author. All quoted material copyright
(c) 1989 G. Burgess Allison.
----- BEGIN EXCERPT -----
[Discussion of recent intellectual property rights events
like the Quarterdeck patent, the Apple look-and-feel lawsuit,
and Tandy's portable hinge design]
UNATTRACTIVE TRADEOFFS
The tradeoffs in this field of law are well established (though the
field is just now making itself felt in the PC marketplace): We want
to encourage competition and product improvements, but we also want to
reward the original inventor and protect the inventor's investment.
There are several protectable rights and the law will be available to
enforce them.
As claimants turn to the courts, though, and as the courts struggle
to apply principle to technology, resentment is running rather high.
(As could probably have been expected, a goodly share of this resentment
is being directed at the class of "lawyers in general." Still, quite
enough resentment is reserved for the claimant as well...)
ARC vs. ZIP
Several years ago, System Enhancement Associates (SEA) developed
an archival process for compressing PC data--permitting several files
to be grouped and compressed together, which aids considerably in such
activities as moving old data to diskettes and transferring files via
telecommunications. SEA's ARC shareware gained widespread usage through
electronic bulletin board systems (BBSs) and PC user groups, and eventually
became the de facto standard for file compression.
In the spirit of ongoing shareware improvements, Phil Katz developed
a new and improved archival package that read and wrote compressed files
rather substantially faster than the SEA software. Of course, to maintain
compatibility with the horde of already-archived files in the market,
the public-domain "PK" software read (and optionally, wrote) archive
files using the same file format that the SEA software used. So far,
so good: Competing features, compatibility, and benefits for the users.
Regrettably, SEA didn't quite see it that way and took PKWare to court.
Even though neither of these products are sold commercially, even though
the software and file formats had been openly discussed, and even though
it was plainly obvious that Katz had rewritten his software from scratch,
SEA now claimed copyright infringements on everything--most notably on the
use of ".ARC" as the *file extension* for archive files. PKWare was forced
to change their software so it wouldn't read or write .ARC files (and of
course, since it can't read .ARC files, then it can't be compatible).
The backlash from the user community was immediate and overwhelming.
PK's new archival software (PKZIP, complete with a new ".ZIP" archive file
extension) was a hit as soon as it was released, and it's already the new
standard for archival software. SEA's ARC is gaining widespread disfavor,
and in certain circles the mere presence of an .ARC file is a sign of
social irresponsibility.
Admittedly, the world of shareware and public domain software isn't
quite the top of the market (where you'll find other noted litigants:
Lotus, Ashton Tate, and Apple). But the potential for backlash against an
in-court victor is very real. In this case at least, the users expressed
a clear preference for a vendor who fights it out in the arena of software
features and capabilities, rather than in the courts of intellectual
property law.
----- END EXCERPT -----
The column runs through a number of other subjects; while I don't always agree
with Burgess, the column does a good job of discussing some of the technical
issues we deal with to a non-technical audience. Check your local law library
for a copy.davidsen@sungod.crd.ge.com (William Davidsen) (06/09/89)
In article <54816@linus.UUCP> jcmorris@mbunix (Morris) writes: | The dispute has now started to appear in legal journals as background | information regarding the evolution of new legal theories and precedents. | The following material will appear in the September 1989 issue of | _Legal_Economics_ in the column "Technology Update" (pp 14 ff) by G. | Burgess Allison. He is discussing the development of the so-called | "intellectual property" cases now in the courts or likely to find their | way there. | | Used with the permission of the author. All quoted material copyright | (c) 1989 G. Burgess Allison. | | ----- BEGIN EXCERPT ----- | | [Discussion of recent intellectual property rights events | like the Quarterdeck patent, the Apple look-and-feel lawsuit, | and Tandy's portable hinge design] | [ ... ] | In the spirit of ongoing shareware improvements, Phil Katz developed | a new and improved archival package that read and wrote compressed files | rather substantially faster than the SEA software. Of course, to maintain | compatibility with the horde of already-archived files in the market, | the public-domain "PK" software read (and optionally, wrote) archive | files using the same file format that the SEA software used. So far, | so good: Competing features, compatibility, and benefits for the users. | Regrettably, SEA didn't quite see it that way and took PKWare to court. | Even though neither of these products are sold commercially, even though | the software and file formats had been openly discussed, and even though | it was plainly obvious that Katz had rewritten his software from scratch, ^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^ | SEA now claimed copyright infringements on everything--most notably on the | use of ".ARC" as the *file extension* for archive files. PKWare was forced The court didn't see it that way. Several newspapers reported that SEA claimed that PKARC was based on the original SEA code. One expert witness gave his opinion as to the origin of the code, and the case was imediately settled out of court. The testimony was sealed, along with some other details. If your friend was trying to write a factual legal book, he should check this. I can only guess what the testimony was which resulted in PK giving in completely, but my guess is that it was not "plainly obvious" that the code was all original. NOTE: I have no axe to grind, I just think that this may be a case of sloppy research and casts doubt on the rest of the book in my mind. bill davidsen (davidsen@crdos1.crd.GE.COM) {uunet | philabs}!crdgw1!crdos1!davidsen "Stupidity, like virtue, is its own reward" -me