W8SDZ@SIMTEL20.ARMY.MIL (Keith Petersen) (09/03/88)
There seems to be no end to SEA's harrassment to authors of utilities
which deal with ARC files.
The following was uploaded to my BBS yesterday.
--Keith Petersen
Maintainer of the CP/M and MSDOS archives at SIMTEL20.ARMY.MIL [26.0.0.74]
Arpa: W8SDZ@SIMTEL20.ARMY.MIL
Uucp: {att,decwrl,harvard,ucbvax,uunet,uw-beaver}!simtel20.army.mil!w8sdz
---forwarded file SUPPORT.TXT---
SEA vs. PKWARE
Shareware Company Threatens BBS World That Gave It Life
---------------------------------------------------------
Last April, System Enhancement Associates, vendors of the archive
utility ARC, filed suit against Phil Katz, author of the archive
programs PKARC and PKXARC, and his company PKWARE. SEA claimed
trademark infringement on the name "ARC," and violation of their
copyright on the "look and feel" of ARC's command-line user-
interface, in addition to charging Katz with appropriating ARC
program code.
The company demanded all profits from PKARC and PKXARC, treble
damages, statutory damages at the highest level allowed, and
attorney fees. It also requested that all copies of PKARC and
PKXARC, from those owned by bulletin board users to those
licensed by businesses, be impounded, and that Katz be barred
from ever again selling or distributing the programs.
In August, SEA and PKWARE settled out of court. SEA obtained the
source code for PKARC and PKXARC, and Katz was required to pay
SEA royalties on the program back to 1985, in addition to
attorney's fees and legal expenses.
He also agreed not to use the word "arc" in a trademark sense.
Under the settlement Katz is permitted to license his PKARC and
PKXARC programs (or PKPAK and PKUNPAK, as they are now called) from
SEA until January 31, 1989. (Anyone who licenses PKPAK and/or
PKUNPAK from Katz prior to then may continue to use those versions
of the program perpetually, even after January 31, 1989.)
Recently SEA filed contempt of court charges against Katz. While
the company has kept details of their allegations under seal, they
appear to be alleging that any use of the word "arc" by Katz,
even as a descriptive or generic term in his programs' user manual
is in violation of the settlement.
SEA has lately been contacting other software developers whose
products make use of the ARC file format and threatening legal
action. Gary Conway, author of NARC, an archive extraction
utility, was contacted by the company, which tried to pressure him
to license the ARC format and turn over the source code of NARC.
Don Kinzer of Polytron received a similar call from Thom
Henderson of SEA. Henderson told Kinzer that if a software
product had the ability to read an ARC file--not create or
extract it, merely read it--SEA would require the vendor to
obtain a license from SEA.
Settlement Issues and Rumor Mongering
One rumor is that the judge in the PKWARE-SEA case had an outside
consultant compare SEA's and Katz's source code. When the
consultant found plagiarized code in PKARC, the story goes, Katz
settled quickly to save face. Not true. No attorneys for either
SEA or Katz had ever met with the judge prior to the settlement,
and at no time did the judge ever retain an expert or himself see
the source code.
The real issues in the case were SEA's charges that Katz had copied
ARC's program code and that he had violated the company's trademark
on the word "arc."
In regard to the first complaint, there are only two pieces of
code in ARC with non-trivial algorithm: the squeeze code and the
crunch code. SEA copied these almost verbatim from public domain
sources in C. Katz's squeeze/crunch code is coded almost
entirely in assembly. No competent programmer could ever
conclude that Katz plagiarized SEA code.
SEA's claim that it owns a trademark on the word "arc" is, as one
UUCP mail user noted, like Digital Equipment insisting that it
owns the word "equipment." The word "arc" as an abbreviation for
"archive" has been in the public domain long before either SEA or
PKWARE entered the scene. Any word which has become a part of
popular parlance, as "arc" has, cannot be protected as a
trademark.
Nevertheless, SEA claims that no one else can use this word to
describe their archive utilities, and that Katz used it to
intentionally confuse users and capitalize on the popularity of
SEA's ARC.
Finally, SEA claimed in its lawsuit that Katz violated the
copyright on the "look and feel" of ARC's user-interface. Anyone
who has ever used both ARC and PKARC knows that neither touts an
interface that is anything more than a few commands and switches
entered at the DOS command line. There are no menus. There are
no full-screen displays. There is nothing artistic or seminal in
the interface of either.
Yet, SEA argued in its suit that Katz "substantially copied and
plagiarized the entire appearance and user interface and screens
which result when a computer user interacts with or uses [ARC]."
By the same logic the author of Fido bulletin board software may
as well sue the designer of RBBS.
Why You As a User Should Care
Over the past year the popularity of Katz's PKARC/PKXARC programs
among both bulletin board and business users surpassed that of
SEA's ARC by a wide margin. Many consider the suit that SEA
waged against PKWARE, as well as the company's subsequent legal
bullying of other shareware archive software developers, as legal
coercion intended solely to drive its competitors out of
business--a tactic not unheard of in the computer industry.
Defending your software against a suit such as the one filed by
SEA against PKWARE can run from $100,000 into the millions, as
copyright and patent suits are the most costly forms of
litigation to defend against. If your product is not grossing
over a million in sales, you will be advised (nay, forced by
economics) to seek an early settlement--as Katz did.
Consider what this means if you're a Dan Bricklin-type
programmer running a small software operation out of your
home. The program you slaved over for months so that it might
win you emancipation from your 9-to-5 job, you might be forced to
destroy in a "legal settlement" over a bogus suit. (Some of us
know people besides Katz to whom this has happened.)
Consider what this means if you're a user. Your choice in
software is being dictated, not by a software package's intrinsic
merits, but legal manipulation. Legal manipulation that favors
the litigant with the most money as opposed to the one with the
best product.
It also means that great programmers are spending their time in
court when they could be busy creating better products for the
marketplace. Unfortunately, legal experts are predicting an
escalation in such suits over the next decade.
What Can We Do?
As a user you can stand up and say that you're not going to put
up with companies that use the courts to strangle their
competition, that employ lawyers and lawsuits to bully companies
and independent programmers out of existence, that dish out
frivolous suits rather than decent products.
No, you do not have to take it anymore, and yes, you do have the
power to change things.
A number of bulletin board operators, to protest SEA's legal
bullying of its competitors, have stopped using SEA's ARC to
archive programs on their systems. We suggest that you likewise
boycott SEA's ARC, as well as the company's SEADOG mail program,
until the company desists its harassment of archive authors.
But boycotts alone are rarely effective. We also ask that you
write to SEA. Accompanying this file is a "form letter" to SEA
(in the accompanying file LETTER.TXT) that you can print out,
sign your name to, and mail. Feel free to add to or change
anything in the letter.
In addition, please upload this file and the accompanying file
LETTER.TXT onto any bulletin board or on-line system that you
call.
If enough of us speak up and let it be known that we are opposed
to this kind of misuse of the legal system, we will be sending a
loud message to software vendors that the computer user community
will not tolerate firms that attempt to drive their competitors
out of business through legal harassment.
Remember that together we have built the PC community into the
most vibrant computer user community in history, and by uniting
we can make it even better.
Judy Getts
Milwaukee, Wisconsin
Contributing Editor/Telecommunications, PC World Magazine
(Originated 8.29.88, Sound of Music BBS, Oceanside, NY)
------------------------------------------------------------
To:
Mr. Thom L. Henderson
System Enhancement Associates, Inc.
21 New Street
Wayne, New Jersey 07470
Dear Mr. Henderson,
I object to the nature of the actions you and your company have
been taking against other software vendors, particularly
shareware companies working in the area of ARC-compatible
utilities.
I feel that these actions are without basis and done with
malice in an attempt to drive your competitors out of business.
I don't believe that these actions will benefit the PC user
community or your company in any way in the long term, nor that
they will advance the state of the art in software.
Indeed, I feel that their effects on the bulletin board community
are divisive. I feel that your actions are wrong. I ask that you
discontinue all such actions and undo the harm that you have
already done to the industry. Further, you should go back to
spending your efforts and money in a way more advantageous to both
yourself and the computer industry as a whole--and that is in
developing new products and improving your existing products fairly
and openly.
Sincerely,Sorceress@cup.portal.com (09/05/88)
If memory serves me correctly, the term 'arc' goes back to the early 70's when Datapoint coined it as an acronym for it's Attached Resource Computer. Maybe SEA should look to their own house before going into others!
raf@cup.portal.com (09/06/88)
In message <8791@cup.portal.com> Sorceress@cup.portal.com writes: >If memory serves me correctly, the term 'arc' goes back to the early 70's >when Datapoint coined it as an acronym for it's Attached Resource Computer. > >Maybe SEA should look to their own house before going into others! Actually, SEA Inc. (by its own admission) was inspired by the book "Software Tools" by Brian W. Kernighan and P.J. Plauger. The ARC documentation contains an acknowledgement to this effect. I have neither the reference nor the book handy at the moment, but I'd guess the book bears a copyright date in the late 70's. I believe "Software Tools" devotes an entire chapter to the design and development, in C language, of a file librarian program called "archive". This used a distributed directory approach and command line syntax remarkably similar to those used by SEA's ARC. -- Bob Freed raf@cup.portal.com ...sun!portal!cup.portal.com!raf
raf@cup.portal.com (09/08/88)
I wrote in article <8798@cup.portal.com>: > I have neither the reference nor the book handy at the moment, but I'd > guess the book bears a copyright date in the late 70's. I've now had a chance to locate my (rather dusty) copy of this classic: "Software Tools" by Brian W. Kernighan and P.J. Plauger. Copyright 1976 by Bell Telephone Laboratories, Incorporated and Yourdon inc. Published by Addison-Wesley, softcover, 338 pages. ISBN 0-201-03669-X. > I believe "Software Tools" devotes an entire chapter to the design and > development, in C language, of a file librarian program called > "archive". Well, mostly correct: The language used is Ratfor (which was modelled after C), and the archive program provides the major example for the chapter concerning file operations (sections 3.8-3.10, pp. 85-103). > This used a distributed directory approach and command line syntax > remarkably similar to those used by SEA's ARC. Having just re-read this material, I find the similarity quite striking. -- Bob Freed raf@cup.portal.com ...sun!portal!cup.portal.com!raf "Next thing you know, we'll have to pay license fees for using inverse trigonometric functions!"
dmt@mtunb.ATT.COM (Dave Tutelman) (09/09/88)
In article <8798@cup.portal.com> raf@cup.portal.com writes: > >Actually, SEA Inc. (by its own admission) was inspired by the book >"Software Tools" by Brian W. Kernighan and P.J. Plauger. The ARC >documentation contains an acknowledgement to this effect. I have >neither the reference nor the book handy at the moment, but I'd guess >the book bears a copyright date in the late 70's. Actually 1976. > >I believe "Software Tools" devotes an entire chapter to the design and >development, in C language, of a file librarian program called >"archive". This used a distributed directory approach and command line >syntax remarkably similar to those used by SEA's ARC. All true. BUT it was called "archive", not ARC, and there was no suggestion of including "ARC" in the name of archive files. Of course, we knew all along that nothing in the technology is original with SEA; the compression code is copied, the philosophy of archiving is copied, the "look and feel" of the interface is copied (from the referenced chapter in K&P). What their lawyers claim is the use of the term "ARC", the details of the file format, and the look and feel of the user interface. WELL, TWO OUT OF THREE AIN'T BAD. WRONG!!!! As has been posted recently, the ARC name was well used (in the archiving context). So all that's left is the file format. If they intend to restrict ITS use (they may well have the legal right), then it has no right to be a standard. See all sorts of precedents in IEEE and ANSI rules about adopting any proprietary ANYTHING as a standard. Of course, we're all familiar with the term "win-win" solutions. Well, SEA managed to make this one a "lose-lose". - Nobody will ever use ARC after this; it'll dry up and blow away. And those that remember why will avoid SEA products for a long time. (I know I will.) - Phil Katz may well be destroyed. ("But, Ma, you shoulda' seen the other guy!") - The user community has lost a VERY useful standard. (ARC is untenable without PKARC in the PC BBS community, and nobody is going to touch it with a ten-foot pole, given SEA's behavior since the settlement.) - The BBS sysops will lose a lot of time converting to whatever replaces ARC as a standard. No, I'm wrong; there is a winner. As usual, the lawyer/vultures won again. In fact, why does this whole thing sound like it started with a lawyer suggesting a "bright idea" to Henderson? (Or Henderson getting pissed off because PK built a Model T compared to SEA's buggy whip, and was making all the money.) +---------------------------------------------------------------+ | Dave Tutelman | | Physical - AT&T Bell Labs - Lincroft, NJ | | Logical - ...att!mtunb!dmt | | Audible - (201) 576 2442 | +---------------------------------------------------------------+ Disclaimer: These are my opinions alone, and have nothing to do with any opinions my employer may hold.
cem@ihlpf.ATT.COM (Malloy) (09/12/88)
You wrote in article <8851@cup.portal.com>, raf@cup.portal.com writes: > > I've now had a chance to locate my (rather dusty) copy of this classic: > "Software Tools" by Brian W. Kernighan and P.J. Plauger. Copyright 1976 > by Bell Telephone Laboratories, Incorporated and Yourdon inc. Published > by Addison-Wesley, softcover, 338 pages. ISBN 0-201-03669-X. > >> This used a distributed directory approach and command line syntax >> remarkably similar to those used by SEA's ARC. > > Having just re-read this material, I find the similarity quite striking. > > -- Bob Freed raf@cup.portal.com > ...sun!portal!cup.portal.com!raf > Are suggesting that AT&T sue SEA for the exact same reason that SEA sues PKWARE? All of the "LOOK AND FEEL" stuff is really getting out of hand. Maybe IBM should sue everyone that makes a computer. That would include general purpose computers (like DEC, Amdahl, Apple, Sun, etc.), but also would include anything that uses computers to work (like microwave ovens, digital watches, automobiles, etc.) But wait, why stop with IBM? You can go farther back than that. And I quote. "In any case, Bell Laboratories' early contributions to digital computers - both hardware and software - quite evidently grew from the fact that telephone switching systems used digital logic and electrical relays, which are binary "on" or "off" devices, to make connections. Importantly also, in the late 1930's principles of logic design proposed by Claude E. Shannon (who later created information theory) were first applied to the design of relay circuts. These principles, together with two basic logic circuts patented by the Laboratories in the early 1940's, still underlie digital computer technology. Also in the late 1930's, George R. Stibitz, another Bell Laboratories mathematician, designed a machine that used telephone switches and relays to perform rapid calculations in binary form. This Complex Number Calculator, as Stibitz called it, was in fact the first electriaclly operated digital computer..." "Mission Communications" by Prescott C. Mabon Copyright by Bell Laboratories 1975 Based on this AT&T should sue EVERY SINGLE manufacture in the entire country. That, of course, would make AT&T the owner of every thing that is made or sold in this country. We would all have to pay AT&T for it all or give it back. Do you all get the point? Can we please stop this stupid "who was first" discussion? Clancy "Yes, I work for AT&T" Malloy