scotty@l5comp.UUCP (Scott Turner) (10/01/88)
[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've read this SEA vs PKWare stuff for what seems like at least a year now (although it's just been a month or two I guess) and finally I think I'm ready to make a clear concise summary of this whole mess. (Attached below) 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.) 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. :) 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. How! Is what more than a few people will be screaming at this point. Keith and others have so muddied the issue that I'm sure ALOT of people will only now understand what I'm about to explain. 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. 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. Phil signed that agreement even though it had two very key problems for him. First, it clearly states he can't use the term ARC inside his new program or dox. Second, ANY product he makes can't use the letter grouping ARC anywhere inside the names of files it creates. SEA's lawyer then finished the trap by making this deal with Phil to give him a license to use the ARC file format and to distribute a modified version of his program until Jan '89. HOWEVER, Phil's lawyer forgot the fine print. While Phil can distribute said program, I can find no loophole for said restriction on using the letter grouping ARC in filenames! ie Phil could still sell a program, but he had to change the file extension he used. Time to sue yer lawyer Phil if he didn't explain that to you. :) There is now little doubt that Phil's goose is COOKED over this out of court settlement he signed. He has CLEARLY violated it's terms and it doesn't matter one damn bit what the original merits of the case were. He's now in dutch for not following the out of court settlement he agreed to. 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. All I can suggest is that Phil better get a sharper lawyer to defend him on this contempt filing than he had on the original. This SEA lawyer is SHARP. Why do I think the lawyer for SEA is so sharp? Look at the dates involved here folks. Less than two weeks went by between the effective date of the out of court settlement and the second filing. 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 :) 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. 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. 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?) Here again all sounds great on the surface, until we read the fine print. Ya have to read that fine print folks! These guys are only going to make the source for the file access toolkit available in the public domain folks. NOT the programs! No one has promised to write a program using this library and give it away as yet. And don't fool yourselves, Phil isn't going to be doing anything of the sort! He already has a track record on this point. SEA gave out the source to ARC, Phil gave away no such thing for PKARC. In fact, if I remember correctly, people had to clobber Phil over the head to get him to tell the world what the SQUASHED file format was. 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. 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 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. 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... 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. 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. 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. :) Almost overnight Phil has gone from public enemy number one with his SQUASHED format, to poor old Phil attacked by big bad SEA. 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!" 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. 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 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 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 never gave away their source. Never promised to either. Never gave away any code fragments for those of us on non-PCDOS machines so we could read/write SQUASHED arc files. 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. 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? 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. Let's look at this whole mess through "Ollie glasses", but with a different tilt. 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!" Boy, wouldn't you LOVE to be in that position? 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. 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. Off with the "Ollie glasses". 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 people wanted to force money on him he told 'em to give it to a charity instead. 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? 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!"??? I think not. 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? 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. 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. 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. ---------------------- 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. 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. 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. 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
malloy@nprdc.arpa (Sean Malloy) (10/02/88)
In article <439@l5comp.UUCP> scotty@l5comp.UUCP (Scott Turner) writes: >[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.] Sounds fair to me. Done. Now, on to work . . . >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. :) Keith has certainly put in a lot of effort to make sure that the situation is kept out in public where people will be aware of it; it's all to easy to let things like this vanish in the noise simply because it isn't being written up in some industry journal every time new information becomes available. The news media did the same thing when the Iranian airliner was shot down in the Persian Gulf, and I don't see you railing about their coverage, which, at least to my mind, has been equally inflammatory. >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. All the justice you can afford, eh? They invested $40,000, and are getting $62,500 out of PKware. Filing lawsuits is obviously a cost-effective business practice -- especially when the guy at the other end of the lawsuit can't afford to defend the lawsuit. >Phil signed that agreement even though it had two very key problems for him. >First, it clearly states he can't use the term ARC inside his new program >or dox. Second, ANY product he makes can't use the letter grouping ARC >anywhere inside the names of files it creates. By your own words, SEA has created an industry standard for archiving programs with ARC. In his documentation for PKPAK/PKUNPAK, Phil used the term 'ARCing' referring to the process of creating archive files. I seem to recall that a number of other companies have lost trademarks through usage falling into the public domain. Aspirin comes to mind. I believe that Xerox eventually gave up on pumping out money to prevent the same thing happening. How many of the people reading this casually refer to 'going to xerox some copies of this' or 'xerox copies' or 'xeroxes' whether or not the machine they are using to make the photocopies was built by Xerox? If 'arcing' and 'unarcing' have become common usage with respect to creating and extracting archive files, then SEA's trademark on ARC is unenforceable as regards those two verbs. In any case, you are flat _wrong_ about PKware not being able to sell programs that make ".ARC" files. More on this momentarily. >SEA's lawyer then finished the trap by making this deal with Phil to give >him a license to use the ARC file format and to distribute a modified >version of his program until Jan '89. HOWEVER, Phil's lawyer forgot the >fine print. While Phil can distribute said program, I can find no loophole >for said restriction on using the letter grouping ARC in filenames! ie Phil >could still sell a program, but he had to change the file extension he used. Wrong. From the text of the agreement between SEA and PKware that was archived at SIMTEL20: | 4. Termination of PK's License: After January 31, 1989, PK agrees | not to distribute or offer for license any program that: 1. | creates ARC compatible archive files; 2. by default adds a | filename extension of ".ARC"; or 3. processes ARC format files. | | 5. No Trademark License: After the effective date of this | Agreement, PK agrees not to distribute or offer for license any | program that carries a trademark, tradename or filename | including the letter combination "ARC" or any other trademark, | tradename or filename the use of which may be confusingly | similar to any of SEA's trademarks, or the use of which may be | likely to cause confusion or mistake or to deceive with respect | to SEA's programs. PK agrees to forthwith abandon any | applications it has pending to register in the United States | Patent & Trademark Office any of its trademarks containing the | letter combination "ARC". This says _explicitly_ that PKware may not distribute a _program_ that has 'ARC' in its name, whether in the documentation or on the disk. It also states _specifically_ the date _after_ which PKware is enjoined from selling a program that makes '.ARC' files (unless the user specifies that file extension explicitly). _After_ 1/1/89, the program can't make ".ARC" files. Not before. Changing the _program_ names to PKPAK and PKUNPAK fulfills the requirement in clause 5; nothing in clause 4 prohibits these programs from creating, by default, ".ARC" file extensions until the start of next year. SEA has shot themselves in the foot. >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. If SEA's trademark on 'ARC' is ruled invalid, all PKware has to do is petition the court to overturn the settlement. >All I can suggest is that Phil better get a sharper lawyer to defend him on >this contempt filing than he had on the original. This SEA lawyer is SHARP. When how much you get paid, or whether you get paid at all, depends on your convincing the court that the other guy is Hitler even if he's Schweitzer, you're going to be grabbing for all the legal tricks you can. If some of them don't pay off, all you're out is time -- and you're out that anyway. >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. If PKARC and PKXARC were so damaging to SEA's 'ARC' trademark and name, why did they wait until versions 3.5 and 3.6 of the PK programs were out? It seems to me that SEA is guilty of failing to defend their trademark. They ignored PKware until they saw that the PKware programs had grabbed a significant, if not major, piece of the archive program market, and only _then_ did they file to shut him down. This isn't "He's infringing our trademark; we'd better slap him down" but "He's cutting into our income; we'd better stomp him before we're out of a job". >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... And people use this new program because it's faster and makes smaller archives, so it cuts into your income. So, rather than make your program better so it can compete with this new program, you drag him into a lawsuit you know you won't win if it drags on long enough, but you know he can't afford to spin the suit out for long enough to win, so he'll have to settle out of court. You get a legal precedent without having to test the justice of your position. >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. (HEAVY SATIRE WARNING) And SEA's _never_ released an updated version of their ARC program that created arcfiles that previous versions couldn't read. If SEA added a new feature to ARC, PKware would have to add that feature to PKARC and PKXARC, or would lose market share to SEA, and vice versa. In case you're not familiar with it, this is called _competition_. Two or more companies add features and utility to a program to create increased sales and income. SEA is trying to monopolize the market by trying to stomp on anyone who tries to reverse-engineer the ARC programs. It's already been proven in court that reverse-engineering _hardware_ is legal; why should _software_ be any different? >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. Funny, the 'arc' program I have running on the Vax at work reads arcfiles with SQUASHED format files in them. (HEAVY SATIRE WARNING) Then I must only have _imagined_ getting this program off of the comp.sources.unix newsgroup, and have only _thought_ I was reading documentation files I extracted using it. I _must_ have a medical checkup immediately; I'm hallucinating. Oh, but you said there was no _PKARC_ for other computers. Yes, I'm sorry, the program I use at work combines both create and extract into one program, and is written in C. As soon as I get some free time, I'll break it up into two programs, and rewrite it in Vax assembler. Real Soon Now. >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? One of the underlying truths behind a free and open market is if you can't compete and won't get out of the market, you're going to lose money. Lose enough money, and you'll _have_ to get out of the market. >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. No matter which way the arguments are flying, when it comes down to what, in my opinion, is one company suing another because the second company is making a better product, then the first company is maliciously trying to monopolize the market. >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 >never gave away their source. Never promised to either. Never gave away >any code fragments for those of us on non-PCDOS machines so we could read/write >SQUASHED arc files. The algorithms for the compression routines are in the public domain, because you can't copyright an algorithm. For all your screaming about what a monster Phil Katz is for not releasing source to PKARC and PKXARC and introducing this incompatible SQUASHED format, the fact remains that he _did_ release the format of a SQUASHED file, and anyone who is willing to put in the work to write a SQUASHing routine for a non-PCDOS machine can do it. You are saying that Phil Katz is dirt because he only created this new archive format for PCDOS machines. (HEAVY SATIRE WARNING) If you are so anguished about the hapless plight of the millions of Amiga, Atari, Commodore, Apple, and Mac users out there, who are all _obviously_ incapable of writing code of this complexity given both the algorithm used and the file format, (FLAME WARNING) then by God _YOU_ write the programs for them -- don't go whining and badmouthing Phil Katz because he only wanted to do it for the IBM PC! >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. You're not putting out garbage -- just fertilizer. > >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? I agree. Phil Katz is keeping people from using his _code_. He has put a lot of work into his programs, and wants to prevent people from taking his code, filing off the serial numbers, and selling it as _their_ code. However, the _algorithms_ used in the programs are available, as is the file format. If you can't take an algorithm and a file format and write code that will generate that file format using that algorithm, then find someone who can and is willing to do it for you. >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!" > >Boy, wouldn't you LOVE to be in that position? The general concensus appears to be that Phil Katz is getting a fudge packing from SEA. As a result of this, and based on his track record of producing quality software, people _are_ going to support his intention to build a new, and putatively better, file archiving program. This also puts him on the hot seat, because if it's a turkey, it's going to shoot his reputation full of holes. > >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. Unless he's going to come up with some new compression algorithm and keep _that_ under his hat, he's going to be using existing file compression algorithms, which are publicly available. With the file format and the algorithm(s) used, anyone who's interested will be able to write routines to read and write the file format for other machines. If his new archiving program goes over big enough, _somebody_ will find it to be worth his while to write the code so he can read that format on his machine. Once that starts, it's all downhill from there -- more implementations on more machines will start appearing. >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. SEA wasn't competetive in the software market, so they decided that, since trying to compete in the market wouldn't _guarantee_ that they could compete, they dragged Phil into the legal system, where _he_ was the one who lacked the financial resources to compete. Sean Malloy Navy Personnel Research & Development Center San Diego, CA 92152-6800 malloy@nprdc.arpa
tneff@dasys1.UUCP (Tom Neff) (10/03/88)
Scott Turner's analysis of the SEA/PK thing is interesting. I have no doubt he will get all the flames he predicted and more! :-) It would certainly be a nice idea to work on promulgating a new packaging standard after several years of ARC. But it should be a major IMPROVEMENT over ARC, not a politically motivated workalike. There are a number of features we could stand to see invented, and this would be a good time to do it. That's not exactly what appears to be happening though. Rahul's ZOO doesn't represent a true quantum improvement over ARC; it's more of a carefully rethought clone. Nevertheless it would have been perfectly positioned to step into the void after the ARC legal firestorm and become a prominent packaging format. Unfortunately, Rahul picked this most inopportune of moments to start playing political games with the timesharing services and diskette clubs, hobbling his current ZOO.EXE with a mishmash of distribution restrictions I think few sysops are going to want to try and wade through. A real shame. -- Tom Neff UUCP: ...!cmcl2!phri!dasys1!tneff "None of your toys CIS: 76556,2536 MCI: TNEFF will function..." GEnie: TOMNEFF BIX: t.neff (no kidding)
gmat@wuibc.UUCP (Gregory Martin Amaya Tormo) (10/03/88)
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.
dhesi@bsu-cs.UUCP (Rahul Dhesi) (10/03/88)
In article <6772@dasys1.UUCP> tneff@dasys1.UUCP (Tom Neff) writes: >Unfortunately, >Rahul picked this most inopportune of moments to start playing >political games with the timesharing services and diskette clubs... Tom, any redistribution restrictions I impose are so reasonable and flexible that no organization that has formally approached me to obtain permission to redistribute has ever gone away dissatisfied. -- Rahul Dhesi UUCP: <backbones>!{iuvax,pur-ee}!bsu-cs!dhesi
george@rebel.UUCP (George M. Sipe) (10/03/88)
In article <439@l5comp.UUCP> scotty@l5comp.UUCP (Scott Turner) writes: >(long, well reasoned comments on SEA vs. PK concluding that SEA's position > should be reconsidered, that PK is at fault, and that we need to back a > new standard) >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 >people wanted to force money on him he told 'em to give it to a charity instead I agree completely. The ONLY complaint I've heard about ZOO is that CompuServe can't distribute the very latest version of it as it becomes available. That means in practice, they will be about 6 months behind the rest of the world in making the latest and greatest available. Big deal. This is Rahul's way of encouraging reasonable connect rates and/or trying to prohibit others from profiting directly from his work (when he himself doesn't and doesn't want to). This policy is probably doing us all a favor. (Note that old versions of ZOO can correctly process archives made with newer versions, only processing niceties added by a later version are lost when using a back rev.) Compared to SEA, old PK, and new PK - ZOO has clearly (that's **CLEARLY**) the best terms. ZOO's terms are in the public interest. They are in *YOUR* interest. Check it out yourself, directly. I've always liked ZOO in theory, but never tried it. Last week I brought it up on two Unix systems and on a few PC's. Works like a charm. Well thought out, fast, good compression, many useful features. I'll never go back, and personally, have absolutely no interest what-so-ever in PK's next proprietary, undebugged, unproven archiver. -- George M. Sipe, Phone: (404) 662-1533 Tolerant Systems, 6961 Peachtree Industrial, Norcross, GA 30071 UUCP: ...!{decvax,hplabs,linus,rutgers,seismo}!gatech!rebel!george
pjh@mccc.UUCP (Pete Holsberg) (10/03/88)
Well put, Sean!
raf@cup.portal.com (10/04/88)
From: raf@cup.portal.com (Bob Freed) Just when you thought everything that *can* be said *has* been said... In article <439@l5comp.UUCP> scotty@l5comp.UUCP (Scott Turner) writes: >[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.] [...followed by 304 more lines of mostly nonsensical ranting.] That flame invitation is a real temptation... [10,000 groans of dismay from net readers worldwide...] ...but most of this belongs in alt.flame, and I won't add to the noise in comp.sys.ibm.pc by debating every point. [...10,000 sighs of relief!] However, there are a few statements about which I would like to comment. [Uh, oh...] I'll try to be brief (relative to the referenced article). [Whew! :-)] >...big problem has been one Keith Peterson. I find this *extremely* objectionable. Keith has for many years been a significant contributor to public domain software distribution in general and to the network community in particular. He's left little doubt as to his sympathies in the matter of SEA vs. PKware, but his postings have always been informative and factual. You may not agree with Keith, but he certainly does not deserve to be categorized in this manner for expressing his views (which are shared by many who are less influential). >...about the recent 2nd lawsuit filed by SEA: >...may yet get one Phil Katz thrown in jail. The second complaint was not a lawsuit, and these are CIVIL not CRIMINAL actions. That you believe Phil Katz might face imprisonment reduces your credibility in legal matters sufficiently to allow us to dispense with at least the next 15 paragraphs of your article. >In fact, if I remember correctly, people had to clobber Phil over the >head to get him to tell the world what the SQUASHED file format was. This is a fallacy. The facts have been posted to USENET several times (most recently by Keith Petersen), but since the PK bashers continue to propogate this type of misinformation, the facts bear repeating: Shortly after the release of PKARC 2.0 (the version that introduced Squashing) in mid-December 1986 [yes, it was that long ago!], Katz released a document (SQSHINFO.DOC) describing his "new" compression method. It was actually just a very minor variation of the existing Lempel-Ziv-Welch compression (Crunching) used by ARC, but one which yielded measurable savings in space and time for large compressable files. The public information which Katz provided was sufficient to allow (trivial) modification to existing archive extractors for support of PKARC-generated files. I can speak with some authority on this topic... >There are no VMS/Unix/Atari ST/Commodore C64/CPM/Amiga PKARC programs >folks. ^^^ ...as I am the author of the predominant .ARC file extraction program, UNARC, for CP/M systems. UNARC is coded in Z80 assembly language, and it took me all of two hours' time to make the necessary modifications to support Squashing. Within a few days after the appearance of PKARC 2.0, a compatible version of UNARC was in the hands of remote access CP/M sysops across the North American continent. It has always amazed me that Squashing became such an issue for the MS-DOS and UNIX communities, when it was never one for us "lowly" CP/M users. (Had I had ready access to a *NIX machine at the time, the net would have also had a Squashing version of ARC much sooner. Any competent C programmer could have done as much in an afternoon or two.) Incidentally, the name "UNARC" was my own invention. At the time I released the first version (May 1986), this term was *not* in common usage anywhere, and I researched it quite thoroughly. [The program was to be called "DEARC" until I discovered a Pascal program of that name by another author.] So I was mildly annoyed to see SEA Inc. claiming sole rights to this terminology. Certainly, there was no mention of trademark rights by ARC author Thom Henderson back in 1986, in his reply to a letter from me. Which leads me to one other myth about SEA... >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. SEA has never fostered anything but its own growth among MS-DOS computer users. More than two years ago, I was bluntly told by Thom Henderson: "We don't support CP/M" (a direct quote). From a practical financial standpoint, I can't blame him one bit, but let's not attribute to SEA any altruistic inclinations toward the "BROAD range of computer users." With regard to practicality (entrepreneurship?), it has been argued that Phil Katz is no different than Thom Henderson. But I've had conversations with Phil, and he has shown a genuine concern for the usefulness and portability of his products in non-DOS environments. (PKware *does* offer a shareware archive extractor for AmigaDOS, and a VAX/VMS version was in the works before SEA's attorney came knocking.) I sincerely believe we have a better chance with PKware for a UNIVERSAL, WELL-SUPPORTED, and TECHNOLOGICALLY-ADVANCED compressing-archiver system. Bob Freed raf@cup.portal.com Newton Centre, MA ...sun!portal!cup.portal.com!raf "Next thing you know, we'll have to pay license fees for using inverse trigonometric functions!"
w8sdz@smoke.ARPA (Keith B. Petersen ) (10/04/88)
In article <47722@rebel.UUCP> george@rebel.UUCP (George M. Sipe) writes: >..... (Note that old versions of ZOO can correctly process >archives made with newer versions, only processing niceties added by a >later version are lost when using a back rev.) >..... >I've always liked ZOO in theory, but never tried it. Last week I >brought it up on two Unix systems and on a few PC's. Works like a >charm. Well thought out, fast, good compression, many useful >features. I also brought up ZOO on Unix 4.3 BSD. Yesterday I attempted to extract some files from a ZOO file made on MSDOS and ended up with only half of the files extracted. During the extraction there were no warning messages. I decided to have ZOO test the archive and it said I needed a newer version in order to fully manipulate the files in this ZOO. I finally had to download the files to my PC and use ZOO201 to extract the files. There were no subdirectories in the extracted filenames, I double-checked that by doing ZOO e// and ZOO l// on the archive (I speak of archive in the generic term here since that's what ZOO's author says in reference to the files it creates). -- --Keith Petersen Maintainer of the CP/M and MSDOS archives at SIMTEL20.ARMY.MIL [26.0.0.74] Arpa: W8SDZ@SIMTEL20.ARMY.MIL Uucp: {ames,decwrl,harvard,rutgers,ucbvax,uunet}!simtel20.army.mil!w8sdz
tneff@dasys1.UUCP (Tom Neff) (10/04/88)
In article <4177@bsu-cs.UUCP> dhesi@bsu-cs.UUCP (Rahul Dhesi) writes: >In article <6772@dasys1.UUCP> tneff@dasys1.UUCP (Tom Neff) writes: >>Unfortunately, Rahul picked this most inopportune of moments to start >>playing political games with the timesharing services and diskette clubs... >Tom, any redistribution restrictions I impose are so reasonable and >flexible that no organization that has formally approached me to obtain >permission to redistribute has ever gone away dissatisfied. If everyone who wants to distribute ZOO gets to do so anyway, why bother to impose the restrictions in the first place. I wish Rahul understood the bad P.R. those complex restrictive clauses represent. Perhaps he ought to say all these nice words about reasonableness loud and clear in the README file for ZOO, rather than saving the good stuff for the tiny slice of users who read comp.sys.ibm.pc. -- Tom Neff UUCP: ...!cmcl2!phri!dasys1!tneff "None of your toys CIS: 76556,2536 MCI: TNEFF will function..." GEnie: TOMNEFF BIX: t.neff (no kidding)
cy@killer.DALLAS.TX.US (Cyrus Foughty) (10/04/88)
in article <439@l5comp.UUCP>, scotty@l5comp.UUCP (Scott Turner) says: > > [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 am in total agreement with you Scott!! I like so many others fell for the whole thing hook, line, and sinker! I am so glad that there are thinking men around like you. Personally, I would like to see ONLY PUBLIC DOMAIN software running across the Net. I mean NO COPYRIGHT or TRADEMARKS in the software or even associated with a program!! That would indeed flex the muscle of the Net and cause major repercussions to ALL shareware authors. I for one have thought about distributing some of my software through the Shareware Marketing System. The only difference between a lot, NOT ALL, of shareware authors and say, Microsoft, is that the shareware companies aren't as big YET. There are dreams of opening the mail and having thousands of dollars sent to you! Take for instance the people who brought you PC-Outline. They started out with a good idea to help people and made a little cash to boot. Now they have several people working for them and I was told are going head-to-head with Lotus Metro. Fine, but they are going to charge a couple hundred bucks for it. The people at PC-Outline said," We've gotta charge that much or the corporations will think It is crap and not buy it!". Once again someone out for the corporate buck! Which BTW, pays for a lot of this network! I see UseNet as the last bastion of true sharing and caring between people! I have met very few people who are actually on the net, but I feel like I know them so well!! Hi, Henry Spencer! UseNet has become so much a part of my life!! If I've had car problems which I couldn't figure out, I just post to the Net and get an answer. Well, not just one answer but several, and I always get the help I need. The techinal help here on this net FAR surpasses any reference library or thinktank anywhere in the world! We have what so many people in the world wish they had in their life. If we need to impose some rules on ourselves to preserve the Net then, so be it! I cast ONE vote for the idea of only allowing TRUE public domain software on the Net. Thank you Scott for sharing TRUE insight!!!!!!!!!!!!!! > Scott Turner > scotty@l5comp -or- uunet!l5comp!scotty -- cy {ames,decwrl}!killer!cy MaBell: 408.255.5990 IRS Motto: Reach out and touch someone!
davidsen@steinmetz.ge.com (William E. Davidsen Jr) (10/05/88)
In article <9685@cup.portal.com> raf@cup.portal.com writes: | | >...big problem has been one Keith Peterson. | | I find this *extremely* objectionable. Keith has for many years been a | significant contributor to public domain software distribution in general | and to the network community in particular. He's left little doubt as to Amen! Even thought I totally disagree with Keith on SEA, he is a responsible person who has performed many services in the past. | | >...about the recent 2nd lawsuit filed by SEA: | >...may yet get one Phil Katz thrown in jail. | | The second complaint was not a lawsuit, and these are CIVIL not CRIMINAL | actions. That you believe Phil Katz might face imprisonment reduces your | credibility in legal matters sufficiently to allow us to dispense with at | least the next 15 paragraphs of your article. That's a bit harsh. The second action is not really a lawsuit, it's a complaint that terms of the settlement of the lawsuit are not being followed. PK could really go to jail for contempt of court. | SEA has never fostered anything but its own growth among MS-DOS computer | users. More than two years ago, I was bluntly told by Thom Henderson: | "We don't support CP/M" (a direct quote). From a practical financial | standpoint, I can't blame him one bit, but let's not attribute to SEA any | altruistic inclinations toward the "BROAD range of computer users." I don't totally agree with that one, since ARC is free for personal use and non-optional shareware for commercial use. PK want money from everyone. I don't says that's wrong, just that SEA has shown the inclination to let users have free use of the program, and has released the source for use on non MS-DOS systems. I don't believe that PK has released source code. | With regard to practicality (entrepreneurship?), it has been argued that | Phil Katz is no different than Thom Henderson. But I've had conversations | with Phil, and he has shown a genuine concern for the usefulness and | portability of his products in non-DOS environments. (PKware *does* offer | a shareware archive extractor for AmigaDOS, and a VAX/VMS version was in | the works before SEA's attorney came knocking.) I sincerely believe | we have a better chance with PKware for a UNIVERSAL, WELL-SUPPORTED, and | TECHNOLOGICALLY-ADVANCED compressing-archiver system. It's called zoo, and if it didn't have those restrictions I think the whole issue of another archiver would be settled by now. -- bill davidsen (wedu@ge-crd.arpa) {uunet | philabs}!steinmetz!crdos1!davidsen "Stupidity, like virtue, is its own reward" -me
alexande@drivax.UUCP (Mark Alexander) (10/07/88)
In article <47722@rebel.UUCP> george@rebel.UUCP (George M. Sipe) writes: >[ZOO is] well thought out, fast, good compression, many useful >features. ZOO is also very easy to port to new systems. The system-specific stuff is well isolated in a couple of files. Machine differences like byte order and integer size are all handled properly. This is very important if you have to move data between many different operating systems and processors. -- Mark Alexander (UUCP: amdahl!drivax!alexande) "Bob-ism: the Faith that changes to meet YOUR needs." --Bob (as heard on PHC)