w8sdz@brl-smoke.ARPA (Keith B. Petersen ) (06/14/88)
This is really incredible! SEA is suing Phil Katz, the author of
PK(X)ARC. I am so angry about this that I am deleting all copies of
SEA's ARC program. It's time to send in your support to Phil for his
vastly superior archiving program. I am sending my check today - in an
amount greater than the donation he suggests (his program is free for
non-commercial use).
Keith Petersen
Maintainer of the CP/M and MSDOS archives at SIMTEL20.ARPA [26.0.0.74]
---cut-here---PKSUIT.TXT---cut-here---
Shareware Developers Fight Court
Battle Over Copyright Infringement
Milwaukee - Two tiny developers of "shareware" are fighting in
court over alleged copyright infringement.
System Enhancement Associates Inc. (SEA) claims that PKWare
INc. copied an SEA shareware program to use in its own shareware
offering. SEA has filed suit in U.S. District Court here.
The suit points out the growing commercial success of
shareware, software that developers distribute freely on
electronic bulletin boards and ask that users send them a
payment.
Most shareware companies are small operations with few
employees, often run from a developer's home. In the last two
years, a handful of shareware companies have grown large enough
to rival commercial developers. The overall shareware market has
expanded from approximately $5 million to about $15 million,
according to Marshall Magee, president of the Association of
Shareware Professionals, an industry group based in Norcross, Ga.
With the growth have come squabbles over ownership of
programs, perhaps inevitable in an industry where developers make
their source code available to millions of users across the
country.
Users can copy shareware, Mr. Magee said. But users can't
resell a shareware program they've copied or use part of a copied
program in their own shareware offerings, he explained.
In SEA vs. PKWare, SEA officials claim PKWare copied one of
its programs in two of its commercial products.
Two archive utilities that PKWare sells, called PKARC and
PKXARC, are at the center of the controversy. An archive utility
compresses data files so they can be stored in less space and
transmitted more quickly over phone lines.
SEA, of Fort Wayne, N.J., sells an archive utility called
ARC. SEA claims PKARC and PKXARC violates both the trademark on
its product's name and the copyrights on the product's appearance
and user interface.
SEA released its product in 1985. PKWare started selling its
products in 1986.
Last December, SEA asked PKWare to pay licensing fees on
PKARC and PKXARC. PKWare refused.
Philip Katz, the president of PKWare, a four-employee
company that he runs from his Glendale, Wis., home, denied
copying SEA's software. Mr. Katz claimed his products have more
features than SEA's product.
SEA president Thom Henderson wouldn't comment on the
lawsuit, nor would his lawyer.
PKWare's Mr. Katz said he worries about the effect of the
suit on his business. "We're a small company. Any kind of
litigation is a drain," he said.
-By Daniel J. Lyons
PCWEEK (May 31, 1988)
--
Keith Petersen
Arpa: W8SDZ@SIMTEL20.ARPA
Uucp: {bellcore,decwrl,harvard,lll-crg,ucbvax,uw-beaver}!simtel20.arpa!w8sdz
GEnie: W8SDZmsmith@topaz.rutgers.edu (Mark Robert Smith) (06/15/88)
Anybody got an e-mail address for Thom Henderson, so we can all flame
him personally?
Mark
--
Mark Smith (alias Smitty) "Be careful when looking into the distance,
61 Tenafly Road that you do not miss what is right under your nose."
Tenafly, NJ 07670 {backbone}!rutgers!topaz.rutgers.edu!msmith
msmith@topaz.rutgers.edu Bill and Opus in '88!!!mac3n@babbage.acc.virginia.edu (Alex Colvin) (06/15/88)
Is this Thom Henderson of SEA formerly of the merchant marine academy?
davidsen@steinmetz.ge.com (William E. Davidsen Jr) (06/16/88)
In article <8084@brl-smoke.ARPA> w8sdz@brl-smoke.UUCP (Keith Petersen) writes: | This is really incredible! SEA is suing Phil Katz, the author of | PK(X)ARC. I am so angry about this that I am deleting all copies of | SEA's ARC program. -more- I want to see what the basis of the suit is before I decide on the moral issues. Just because PKware is small doesn't give them any more (or less) rights to use others software or patented ideas. I would like to get details of this before I say that there's no justification. Not a defense of SEAware, just a suggestion that we wait to see what the basis of the suit is and if it's valid. -- bill davidsen (wedu@ge-crd.arpa) {uunet | philabs | seismo}!steinmetz!crdos1!davidsen "Stupidity, like virtue, is its own reward" -me
brad@looking.UUCP (Brad Templeton) (06/17/88)
In article <8084@brl-smoke.ARPA> w8sdz@brl-smoke.UUCP (Keith Petersen) writes: >This is really incredible! SEA is suing Phil Katz, the author of >PK(X)ARC. I am so angry about this that I am deleting all copies of >SEA's ARC program. It's time to send in your support to Phil for his >vastly superior archiving program. Why this nasty reaction? Isn't this for the judge to decide? I don't know if PKware used any of SEA's code, and I suspect they didn't, but if they did, then they deserve to pay through the nose. On the other hand, it's obvious that PKARC misuses SEA's ARC trademark, and they should be required to make that right. But let the judge decide. -- Brad Templeton, Looking Glass Software Ltd. -- Waterloo, Ontario 519/884-7473 "USENET -- the world's least important network."
berger@clio.las.uiuc.edu (06/17/88)
I agree with Bill Davidsen. How can I judge without more details? It's
clear that Sea's ARC was the model for pkarc.
Mike Berger
Department of Statistics
Science, Technology, and Society
University of Illinois
berger@clio.las.uiuc.edu
{ihnp4 | convex | pur-ee}!uiucuxc!clio!bergerwarren@psu-cs.UUCP (Warren Harrison) (06/17/88)
> Anybody got an e-mail address for Thom Henderson, so we can all flame > him personally? > Mark > -- > Mark Smith (alias Smitty) "Be careful when looking into the distance, > 61 Tenafly Road that you do not miss what is right under your nose." > Tenafly, NJ 07670 {backbone}!rutgers!topaz.rutgers.edu!msmith > msmith@topaz.rutgers.edu Bill and Opus in '88!!! If not an e-mail address, how about a USPS address?
w8sdz@brl-smoke.ARPA (Keith B. Petersen ) (06/18/88)
Reading SEA's own documentation for any version of ARC you will find
that the program was based on the Unix "compress", Richard Greenlaw's
"squeeze/unsqueeze" and the *copyrighted* LZW crunch. The copyright for
LZW is owned by Unisys. Perhaps it's time for them to assert their
rights and sue SEA. It seems to me that SEA's copyright is invalid
because one cannot take another copyrighted work, modify it and then
copyright it.
It seems that SEA has opened a "can of worms". After announcing the
availability of an update of SEA's ARC program, I received the
following message which raises serious doubts as to the validity of
SEA's copyright. Since this is a private message I have omitted
the sender's address.
--forwarded message--
To: Keith Petersen <W8SDZ@SIMTEL20.ARPA>
Re: Message for the authors of ARC
I don't know how to get in touch with the authors of ARC (I didn't see
any addresses in INFO-IBMPC), but since you seem to be posting information
about new versions, etc., I thought that you might be able to forward the
following mail to them.
1) The correct spelling of the name is Ziv. So you should call it
Lempel-Ziv (or Ziv-Lempel because that was the order of the author's
names in the original paper) encoding.
2) The original Ziv-Lempel method is patented (#4,464,650 -- Willard
Eastman, Abraham Lempel, Jacob Ziv, Martin Cohen) assigned to Sperry
Univac (now Unisys). Since the Welch modifications are to this
method, I would think that some sort of license agreement from Unisys
would be necessary (this is really only a practical problem for
commercial customers). Does such an agreement exist?
--end forwarded message--
--
Keith Petersen
Arpa: W8SDZ@SIMTEL20.ARPA
Uucp: {bellcore,decwrl,harvard,lll-crg,ucbvax,uw-beaver}!simtel20.arpa!w8sdz
GEnie: W8SDZgudeman@arizona.edu (David Gudeman) (06/19/88)
In article <16800302@clio> berger@clio.las.uiuc.edu writes: > >I agree with Bill Davidsen. How can I judge without more details? It's >clear that Sea's ARC was the model for pkarc. I wouldn't want to over react either -- if Phil Katz actually used original source code from arc, there is a clear copyright violation. But the article posted to the net implied that the law suit is over the fact that pkarc does the same thing as arc, and over the similarity in names. And the _only_ thing original about arc is (possibly) the format of the archives. The idea of archives, the user interface and the naming convention (prefix of "archive") have been around (at least) since early UNIX in the form of ar. It would be disastrous for the computer community if courts started ruling that data formats are copyrightable. For example, you might even be accused of copyright violation you wrote a program to read files in WordStar format and change them to ascii.
boneill@hawk.ulowell.edu (SoftXc Coordinator) (06/19/88)
I don't believe Phil Katz did (or could) use the source code to SEA's ARC. I
corresponded some time ago with Vern Buerg, the author of ARC, about the
source code to ARC 5.21, hoping to create a UNIX port. He told me that
almost all the code was in MASM, which would not be easily portable. He did,
however, point me to Phil Katz, whose PK[X]ARC programs were written in C.
He doesn't seem to have any grudge against Phil, but he doesn't hold the
copyright. SEA does, and obviously they think Phil did something.
============================================================================
Brian O'Neill, MS-DOS Software Exchange Coordinator
ArpaNet: boneill@hawk.ulowell.edu
UUCP : {(backbones),harvard,rutgers,et. al.}!ulowell!hawk!boneilljamesd@percival.UUCP (James Deibele) (06/19/88)
In article <8084@brl-smoke.ARPA> w8sdz@brl-smoke.UUCP (Keith Petersen) writes: >This is really incredible! SEA is suing Phil Katz, the author of >PK(X)ARC. I am so angry about this that I am deleting all copies of >SEA's ARC program. It's time to send in your support to Phil for his >vastly superior archiving program. I am sending my check today - in an >amount greater than the donation he suggests (his program is free for >non-commercial use). I hope SEA wins, solely because of PKARC 3.5. Phil Katz came out with a program that defaults to a non-compatible format which has caused more time and trouble to be expended than the slight gain in space could ever repay. You now download files with an .ARC format that ARC can't handle, which is totally ridiculous. If he'd used a .PKA extension, or released the source code, or made the default to be compatible (you have to explicitly instruct PKARC to make normal ARC files --- that are not only compatible with SEA's program, but also ones running on CP/M, UNIX, Apple, Macintosh, and other machines (none of which understand PKARC's "ARC")), he might have reason to expect sympathy. Users don't read documentation. If Katz knew what he was doing when he made the default non-compatible, he's contemptible. SEA's ARC now has the reputation of being "broken" because it doesn't understand both formats, which I'm sure has cut down on their shareware registrations (who registers broken shareware?) and caused this suit. So what's SEA supposed to do? Come out with NuARC, that writes data into yet another ARC format that PKARC doesn't understand? (SEA isn't much, if any, bigger than PKWARE, by the way.) SEA released source, cited people whose code helped ARC, and encouraged people to use it on other machines. ARC swept SQUEEZE and LIBRARY programs off the face of the MS-DOS earth because people now had one standard, rather than 15 different versions of SQ or LU. There are at least two different trojan versions of ARC on the Dirty Dozen list, and the only time I ever saw them get any coverage in PC or InfoWorld was when ARC513.COM (a trojan) formatted some hard disks. I feel sorry for SEA, 'cause it looks like they get screwed again. They did all the dirty work in getting the ARC standard accepted, and here comes Phil Katz to cherry-pick. Now all the people that were using ARC have a "perfect" excuse not to register it. Maybe nice guys do finish last ... -- James S. Deibele jamesd@qiclab or jamesd@percival TECHbooks: The Computer Book Specialists (800) TECH-BKS 3646 SE Division Portland, OR 97202 (503) 238-1005 TECHbooks One BBS (#1:105/4.0); 3/12/24 (503) 760-1473
richardh@killer.UUCP (Richard Hargrove) (06/19/88)
In article <5912@megaron.arizona.edu>, gudeman@arizona.edu (David Gudeman) writes: > But the article posted to the net implied that the law suit is over > the fact that pkarc does the same thing as arc, and over the > similarity in names. And the _only_ thing original about arc is > (possibly) the format of the archives. The idea of archives, the user > interface and the naming convention (prefix of "archive") have been > around (at least) since early UNIX in the form of ar. > > It would be disastrous for the computer community if courts started > ruling that data formats are copyrightable. For example, you might > even be accused of copyright violation you wrote a program to read > files in WordStar format and change them to ascii. I don't remember the exact wording of the originally posted article, but my impression was that SEA is claiming 1) that PKARC looks an awful lot like their ARC utility (compare the help screens, compare the /v displays, etc.) and 2) they have some sort of right to the use of the name ARC. Number one dates all the way back to the copyright wars over video games back in the late 70's when it was established that even though a game ran on a pc (rather than on a dedicated game box), if the graphics and/or sound was similar enough (judgment call here) it was a copyright violation. Since then a number of companies have been zinged on that one, the most well known one being what Apple did to Digital Research over GEM. As for number 2, this one is even more open to judgement. What right does SEA have to the name ARC? What constitutes a major enough variation to keep from being an infringement? I noticed that Wendin changed the name of PC-UNIX to PCNX; I wonder if it was under duress from AT&T? These are questions that have nothing to do with code _per se_. It's not that simple and there are potentially big $$ to be made here. When you're in business, it never hurts to remember the golden rule (1980's version): "He who has the gold, makes the rules." ;-) richard hargrove ...!{ihnp4 | codas | cbosgd}!killer!richardh --------------------------------------------
W8SDZ@SIMTEL20.ARPA (Keith Petersen) (06/19/88)
> From: boneill@hawk.ulowell.edu (SoftXc Coordinator) > Newsgroups: comp.sys.ibm.pc > Re: Phil Katz (PKARC author) sued by SEA (ARC author) > > I don't believe Phil Katz did (or could) use the source code to > SEA's ARC. I corresponded some time ago with Vern Buerg, the > author of ARC, about the source code to ARC 5.21, hoping to Vernon is the author of ARCE, ARCA, and ARCV - not ARC. > create a UNIX port. He told me that almost all the code was in > MASM, which would not be easily portable. He did, however, point Vernon's ARCA is written in MASM, as is ARCE and ARCV. SEA's ARC is written in C, which is why it's so slow. > me to Phil Katz, whose PK[X]ARC programs were written in C. PKARC and PKXARC are written partly in C and partly in MASM (which is how Phil gets the speed). The C-language source code for ARC521 is distributed on many BBS systems. I'm told it was made available by SEA. See PD1:<MSDOS.ARC-LBR>ARC521SR.ARC on SIMTEL20. I have never seen any release of source code from Vernon Buerg of his ARCA program. Too bad, too, as it could serve as a guide for writing fast machine language versions for almost any operating system. Oh for the old days of CP/M where everyone shared their ideas by providing source code with *no* copyrights. I learned a lot from reading Ward Christensen's source code. His work laid the groundwork for MSDOS. In any case, I believe that SEA will wish they never opened this can of worms. Their copyright is probably invalid since SEA's ARC includes the copyrighted works of other authors (LZW and Greenlaw). See their DOC file, in the credits section. --Keith Petersen Maintainer of the CP/M and MSDOS archives at SIMTEL20.ARPA [26.0.0.74] Arpa: W8SDZ@SIMTEL20.ARPA Uucp: {decwrl,harvard,lll-crg,ucbvax,uunet,uw-beaver}!simtel20.arpa!w8sdz
scjones@sdrc.UUCP (Larry Jones) (06/20/88)
In article <4499@killer.UUCP>, richardh@killer.UUCP (Richard Hargrove) writes: > I don't remember the exact wording of the originally posted article, but > my impression was that SEA is claiming 1) that PKARC looks an awful lot > like their ARC utility (compare the help screens, compare the /v displays, > etc.) and 2) they have some sort of right to the use of the name ARC. > Number one dates all the way back to the copyright wars over video games > back in the late 70's when it was established that even though a game > ran on a pc (rather than on a dedicated game box), if the graphics and/or > sound was similar enough (judgment call here) it was a copyright violation. > Since then a number of companies have been zinged on that one, the most > well known one being what Apple did to Digital Research over GEM. The source code certainly contains copyright notices, but I don't recall ever seeing any indication that the displays are copyrighted. I would expect the help screens to be similar since the programs do essentially the same thing. As for the listings being similar, don't all directory listing basically look alike? > As for > number 2, this one is even more open to judgement. What right does SEA > have to the name ARC? What constitutes a major enough variation to keep > from being an infringement? I noticed that Wendin changed the name of > PC-UNIX to PCNX; I wonder if it was under duress from AT&T? These are > questions that have nothing to do with code _per se_. It's not that simple > and there are potentially big $$ to be made here. UNIX is a trademark of AT&T in the United States and other countries. Wendin could certainly not use it without their permission and AT&T used to never grant permission. SEA on the other hand has never, to my knowledge, tried to establish ARC as a trademark. I've avoided throwing in my two cents worth up until now, but I can't restrain myself any longer. Thom Henderson had a really good idea to combine a number of existing data compression algorithms with an archiver to produce ARC, but that's all he did -- there was very little original code in ARC. In fact, the source code used to contain comments to the effect that he hadn't the foggiest idea how the LZW compression worked, he just copied the code from somewhere else. It's incredibly hypocritical to criticize, let alone sue, Phil Katz for doing the same thing (and I presume Phil copied from the same places as Thom did, as opposed to copying from Thom's copyrighted code). <Donning asbestos suit> As I see it, SEA had a gold mine going which has dried up because of PKWARE's far superior product. Being unable or unwilling to produce a better product of their own, they have decided to solve the problem in the neo-traditional way -- a lawsuit. The unfortunate result is that, just like the Apple vs. Microsoft suit, it doesn't matter who wins, who loses is us. <I think I'll leave the suit on, I may need it...> ---- Larry Jones UUCP: ...!sdrc!scjones SDRC AT&T: (513) 576-2070 2000 Eastman Dr. BIX: ltl Milford, OH 45150 "When all else fails, read the directions."
del@Data-IO.COM (Erik Lindberg) (06/20/88)
In article <1755@looking.UUCP> brad@looking.UUCP (Brad Templeton) writes: > >On the other hand, it's obvious that PKARC misuses SEA's ARC trademark, >and they should be required to make that right. But let the judge >decide. >-- >Brad Templeton, Looking Glass Software Ltd. -- Waterloo, Ontario 519/884-7473 > "USENET -- the world's least important network." How do you figure? Just because it includes the three letters "ARC"? Does that mean that SEA now owns the copyright on the word ARChive? Where do you think "ARC" came from? Next you'll be telling us that Disneyland should sue Computerland and Computerland should sue Businessland (which incidentally happened, and the judge laughed Computerland out of court). -- del (Erik Lindberg) uw-beaver!tikal!pilchuck!del
caf@omen.UUCP (Chuck Forsberg WA7KGX) (06/20/88)
This suit is an interesting development considering the history of archiving programs and their usage. Early microcomputer archivers included the CP/M LAR program. I don't know if this was inspired by the Unix "tp - manipulate tape archive" programs (now obsolete) or by the CP/M file system. Greenlaw's modified Huffman compression SQ/USQ programs also appeared in the CP/M heyday of "MSDOS prehistory". I've hacked on the code myself, making it portable to Unix. There was even an option to squeeze multiple files into one library, but it was never finialized or documented. Some people started squeezing programs before putting them into libraries, others squeezed the libraries as a whole. Sound familiar? With the advent of MSDOS, both LAR and SQ were ported to the new micros. And then the ARC program took the ideas of the previous LAR usage and automated the member compression function, snarfing the Unix COMPRESS C code in the process. Too bad ARC didn't snarf Unix TAR, CPIO, or AFIO at the same time, we might have avoided the CP/M brain damage that pervades the ARC format today. The only thing that might have been *new* in ARC is the multiple choice of compression methods, and one could argue about that, since it was common practice to selectively squeeze the files placed in LAR archives. There are several generations of the ARC archiver, each producing identically named archive files that older versions of the same program could not decipher. The most recent round in this progression was introduced by Phil Katz's PKARC program. I leave it to the student as an exercise to relate all this to the present topic of contention.
johns@hpwala.HP.COM (John Silva) (06/20/88)
In article <1271@percival.UUCP> jamesd@percival.UUCP (James Deibele) writes:
]I hope SEA wins, solely because of PKARC 3.5. Phil Katz came out with a
Whomever wins, we all lose [again] . :-(
]program that defaults to a non-compatible format which has caused more time
]and trouble to be expended than the slight gain in space could ever repay.
]You now download files with an .ARC format that ARC can't handle, which is
]totally ridiculous. If he'd used a .PKA extension, or released the source
]code, or made the default to be compatible (you have to explicitly instruct
]PKARC to make normal ARC files --- that are not only compatible with SEA's
]program, but also ones running on CP/M, UNIX, Apple, Macintosh, and other
]machines (none of which understand PKARC's "ARC")), he might have reason to
]expect sympathy.
This is the ***MAIN*** reason I avoid using PK*ARC, because of this
[unforgivible] incompatibility. Who cares about 0.02% of file space saved !!
I want a file format that I can unARC under UN*X, MS-DOS, AmigaDOS, ....
(ARC files are not just used for distributing PC software !!)
As far as speed goes ... I can afford to wait an extra minute to produce a
compatible SEA ARC file. What good is it if I produce a PK*ARC file that
someone who has ARC on a UN*X system (or Amiga, or Apple, or ...) cann't read?
(Who know what other incompatibilities PK has 'built-in' to it.)
]
]SEA released source, cited people whose code helped ARC, and encouraged
]people to use it on other machines. ARC swept SQUEEZE and LIBRARY programs
]off the face of the MS-DOS earth because people now had one standard, rather
]than 15 different versions of SQ or LU. There are at least two different
Ditto !! SEA helped produce a standarized file archiving format
that we have all benefitted from.
John Silva
"put your favorite disclaimer here" [so you don't get sued !!] 1/2 :-)davidsen@steinmetz.ge.com (William E. Davidsen Jr) (06/20/88)
In article <7638@swan.ulowell.edu> boneill@hawk.ulowell.edu (SoftXc Coordinator) writes: | I don't believe Phil Katz did (or could) use the source code to SEA's ARC. I | corresponded some time ago with Vern Buerg, the author of ARC, about the | source code to ARC 5.21, hoping to create a UNIX port. He told me that | almost all the code was in MASM, which would not be easily portable. He did, | however, point me to Phil Katz, whose PK[X]ARC programs were written in C. I'm sure lot's of people will let you know this is totally false. ARC is the one written in C, and the source has been posted to the net several times in various states of revision. PKARC source is a guarded secret, and no one could steal anything from it because it not (generally) available. | He doesn't seem to have any grudge against Phil, but he doesn't hold the | copyright. SEA does, and obviously they think Phil did something. As I recall ARCE is now bundled with ARC, and Vernon requests that donations be sent to SEAware. Seems that he believes in giving credit to the originators of the idea. -- bill davidsen (wedu@ge-crd.arpa) {uunet | philabs | seismo}!steinmetz!crdos1!davidsen "Stupidity, like virtue, is its own reward" -me
wcf@psuhcx.psu.edu (Bill Fenner) (06/20/88)
In article <308@sdrc.UUCP> scjones@sdrc.UUCP (Larry Jones) writes: |The source code certainly contains copyright notices, | (...) |myself any longer. Thom Henderson had a really good idea to combine a number |of existing data compression algorithms with an archiver to produce ARC, but |that's all he did -- there was very little original code in ARC. In fact, ^^^^ ^^^^^^ ^^^^^^^^ ^^^^ ^^ ^^^ |the source code used to contain comments to the effect that he hadn't the |foggiest idea how the LZW compression worked, he just copied the code from ^^^^ ^^^^^^ ^^^ ^^^^ ^^^^ |somewhere else. It's incredibly hypocritical to criticize, let alone sue, ^^^^^^^^^ ^^^^ |Phil Katz for doing the same thing (and I presume Phil copied from the same |places as Thom did, as opposed to copying from Thom's copyrighted code). If Thom simply copied lots of code, how can he copyright it? He can copyright the way he put it together, but he can not copyright the code that others wrote. Even if the other code wasn't copyrighted (which I'm almost positive it was), it's truly immoral to claim another's work as your own. And if Thom copied from several different peoples' copyrighted code, how could he dare to sue PK for (allegedly) copying from Thom's copyrighted code. Thom's copyright may be rather shaky. -- Bitnet: wcf@psuhcx.bitnet Bill Fenner | "How can we dance Internet: wcf@hcx.psu.edu | When the beds are burning" UUCP: {gatech,cmcl2,rutgers}!psuvax1!psuhcx!wcf | Fido: Sysop at 263/42 | Now wait a second . . .
phil@amdcad.AMD.COM (Phil Ngai) (06/21/88)
As far as I'm concerned, both ARC and PKARC suck because they can't
handle hierarchical filesystems. Did the guys who wrote these programs
only have access to DOS Version 1.0?
--
I speak for myself, not the company.
Phil Ngai, {ucbvax,decwrl,allegra}!amdcad!phil or phil@amd.comghull@raider (Gordon Hull) (06/21/88)
In article <8084@brl-smoke.ARPA>, Keith Petersen writes: > This is really incredible! SEA is suing Phil Katz, the > author of PK(X)ARC. ... This is indeed an interesting development. A couple of points need to be brought out: 1. SEA's ARC and PK(X)ARC are not the only archive programs in existence. On local boards, I have seen at least two others - ZOO.ARC, and NARCxx.ARC. 2. To the best of my knowledge, the Ziv-Lempel-Welch algorithm is not the property of SEA. If it was, it would be called the "SEA algorithm" :-) SEA can't sue for infringement of a copyright they don't have. Ziv-Lempel-Welch has appeared in a number of textbooks and magazine articles; I would think that it is in the same category as Breshnam's algorithm. It sounds to me like SEA is taking the Lotus approach - resorting to litigation to compete with a superior product! _______________________ Gordon Hull USENET: ghull@raider.uucp FIDONET: Gordon Hull at 1:116/12 USMAIL: Gordon Hull, 907 Kay St. Murfreesboro, TN 37130 FROM CommStuff IMPORT StdDisclaimer; _______________________ --- * Origin: Raiders Roost: Mid TN's FIRST FIDO<->UUCP GATEWAY ! (Opus 1:116/12) SEEN-BY: 116/12 -- ______ / / * Middle Tennessee's FIDO<->UUCP Gateway * (615) 896-7964 /_____/ ___ o ___ ___ ___ * Murfreesboro, Tennessee * / \ /__/ / / / /__ /__/ Bob Reineri - System Operator _/ \___/ /__/__/__/__/__ __/ \_ Mark Bailey - UUCP Project Mgr. UUCP: !{ames,osu-cis,rutgers,decwrl,mit-eddie}!killer!raider FIDO: 1:116/12
bright@Data-IO.COM (Walter Bright) (06/21/88)
In article <1755@looking.UUCP> brad@looking.UUCP (Brad Templeton) writes: >On the other hand, it's obvious that PKARC misuses SEA's ARC trademark, >and they should be required to make that right. But let the judge >decide. What's trademarked? You can't trademark the name 'ARC'. You can only trademark 'ARC' if the 3 letters are written in a distinctive style, which isn't possible using ascii! There has to be something distinctive or unusual about a word or phrase to make it trademarkable, for obvious reasons. Besides, ARC is a pretty generic name. I've even written a program called ARC back before I ever heard of SEA. I've seen many programs called AR, or ARCHIVE, or ARCH over the years, all doing pretty similar things to ARC.
doug@edson.UUCP (Doug Konrad) (06/21/88)
In article <1755@looking.UUCP>, brad@looking.UUCP (Brad Templeton) writes: > > Why this nasty reaction? Isn't this for the judge to decide? I don't > know if PKware used any of SEA's code, and I suspect they didn't, but if > they did, then they deserve to pay through the nose. Unfortunately, the most likely outcome is that the lawyers will decide. From what has been written about Phil Katz's resources, if he loses, he loses. If he wins, his lawyers will win. Either way, Phil is out a whole lot of money.
pozar@hoptoad.uucp (Tim Pozar) (06/21/88)
boneill@hawk.ulowell.edu (SoftXc Coordinator) wrote: > I corresponded some time ago with Vern Buerg, the author of ARC, ... Vern is NOT the author of ARC. Thom Henderson is. Vern is the author of ARCE, and ARCA. These programmes were ment to replace ARC as faster programmes, with simple addtion and extration of programmes. Tim -- --- ...sun!hoptoad!\ Tim Pozar >fidogate!pozar Fido: 1:125/406 ...lll-winken!/ PaBell: (415) 788-3904 USNail: KKSF / 77 Maiden Lane / San Francisco CA 94108
jcw@wa4mei.UUCP (8125) (06/21/88)
In response to John Silva's response, I have one thing to say. He's totally correct. Many a time before I managed to get a copy of PKARC, I downloaded stuff from the net or BBS's, and *POOF* ARC didn't like it. So I had to sit on these .ARC files until I got that copy of PKARC. And lo, it had different defaults. And lo, it was two programs instead of one. BLEAH. Gimme ARC from SEA any day. At least it works with my CPM and Amiga system .ARC files also. ------------------------------------------------------------------------------- John C. Wren There are very few personal problems that cannot be solved by a suitable application of high explosives. -------------------------------------------------------------------------------
jpn@teddy.UUCP (John P. Nelson) (06/21/88)
>If Thom simply copied lots of code, how can he copyright it? He can copyright >the way he put it together, but he can not copyright the code that others >wrote. If the code was "public domain", there is absolutely no restriction on what you can do with it, including copyrighting it. Assuming that Thom used COPYRIGHTED code, then he could not use the code AT ALL unless he was specifically given permission to do so: And if he was given permission to do so, he may be allowed to copyright his new changes: it depends on what the original copyright holder specifies. >Even if the other code wasn't copyrighted (which I'm almost positive >it was), it's truly immoral to claim another's work as your own. The UNIX "compress" is truly public domain. Oh, Lempel-Ziv-Walsh have a PATENT for a hardware implementation of the algorithm, but they have blessed a public-domain software implementation. I don't know what Huffman encoding source code Thom "borrowed", but I am absolutely sure that there are true public-domain versions of this code also (I have one of them!) The algorithm has been published, and several people reimplemented it from scratch. As for the rest of the code, I will bet that Thom did not COPY any code verbatim: he simply used well-known techniques. The ARC file format is not exactly the same as any other archive that I know of. Actually, the compression was added AFTER the base ARC program had been written. I suspect that ARC 1.0 was 100% original code. Is this immoral? I don't know. I would rather HAVE arc, than not have it. I believe that the public welfare has been served, especially since ARC is distributed FREE, with a charge only for SUPPORT. >And if Thom copied from several different peoples' copyrighted code, how >could he dare to sue PK for (allegedly) copying from Thom's copyrighted code. >Thom's copyright may be rather shaky. No, I suspect Thom's copyright on the ARC code is airtight. However, the suit doesn't seem to allege that PK used copyrighted CODE (PKARC is largely in assembly language, although it is unclear if this assembly code is a direct translation of Thom's copyrighted C code - certainly this would be difficult to prove). No, the suit appears to be more stupid than that: it seems to be because PK used the copyrighted name "ARC" as part of his program's name, and because certain displays (pkarc -v) are identical to ARC's. -- john nelson UUCP: {decvax,mit-eddie}!genrad!teddy!jpn smail: jpn@genrad.com -- john nelson UUCP: {decvax,mit-eddie}!genrad!teddy!jpn smail: jpn@genrad.com
jpn@teddy.UUCP (John P. Nelson) (06/21/88)
>Next you'll be telling us that Disneyland should sue Computerland and >Computerland should sue Businessland (which incidentally happened, and the >judge laughed Computerland out of court). You left out the most interesting part of this anecdote. Several years earlier, a company called "Radio Shack" sued "Computer Shack" and WON: Computer Shack had to change it's name to (you guessed it) COMPUTERLAND! Given Computerland's previous experience with the courts, they had every reason to assume that they would win their suit! It just goes to prove that there is no logic in the courts: There is NO WAY to know the result of any particular suit until it actually goes to court! -- john nelson UUCP: {decvax,mit-eddie}!genrad!teddy!jpn smail: jpn@genrad.com
jwd@sas.UUCP (John W. DeBoskey) (06/22/88)
In article <308@sdrc.UUCP> scjones@sdrc.UUCP (Larry Jones) writes: >In article <4499@killer.UUCP>, richardh@killer.UUCP (Richard Hargrove) writes: > ><Donning asbestos suit> > >Microsoft suit, it doesn't matter who wins, who loses is us. ---------------- Too bad we can't make them realize that. J W DeBoskey I don't disclaim anything. I never said it! mcnc!rti!sas!jwd jwd@rti.rti.org!sas
mdf@tut.cis.ohio-state.edu (Mark D. Freeman) (06/22/88)
In <1755@looking.UUCP> brad@looking.UUCP (Brad Templeton) writes: >I don't >know if PKware used any of SEA's code, and I suspect they didn't, but if >they did, then they deserve to pay through the nose. If PK used any of SEA's code, PKARC would be much more of a dog. PKARC was written because SEA's code is so inefficient. -- Mark D. Freeman (614) 262-1418 Applications Programmer, CompuServe mdf@tut.cis.ohio-state.edu [70003,4277] ...!att!tut.cis.ohio-state.edu!mdf Columbus, OH Guest account at The Ohio State University
jcw@wa4mei.UUCP (8125) (06/22/88)
And don't forget McDonalds sueing McDharmas. I don't know about you, but I think it's all getting a little ridiculous about similiar names, and all. Consider this. I was in a restaraunt, and they had a little flyer on the table. Don't remember exactly who it was, but every phrase (5 of them) had a registered trade mark symbol next to it. It's getting unsafe to say anything without being sued. One day, anything you say will have to be qualified by "and [whatever] is a registered trademark of [whoever]". Phooey on all that. I love America, land of the lawsuit... ------------------------------------------------------------------------------- John C. Wren There are very few personal problems that cannot be solved by a suitable application of high explosives. -------------------------------------------------------------------------------
james@bigtex.uucp (James Van Artsdalen) (06/26/88)
IN article <4499@killer.UUCP>, richardh@killer.UUCP (Richard Hargrove) wrote: > [ look & feel issues ] > Since then a number of companies have been zinged on that one, the most > well known one being what Apple did to Digital Research over GEM. Apple never won a judgment against Digital. They apparently never even filed. They merely threatened a war of attrition that Digital would lose. > As for > number 2, this one is even more open to judgment. What right does SEA > have to the name ARC? What constitutes a major enough variation to keep > from being an infringement? I noticed that Wendin changed the name of > PC-UNIX to PCNX; "unix" is a strong trademark. Not only has it been around a long time (I forget the legal name for it, but after a few years a trademark gains strength from the passage of time), but it's not something you would dream up to name an operating system every day. "ARC", if trademarked, is a very weak trademark. It hasn't been around long enough, but more importantly, you *would* think up the word "arc" to use for a program that does archiving. In fact I assume that other programs or systems have used those three letters as a program name or file extension/type. SEA won't keep "ARC" as a trademark. BTW: The 5th circuit appellate court ruled on Vault vs. Quaid last Tuesday. I have the decision and it's pretty interesting. Quaid won a complete victory, and the shrink-wrap prohibitions against disassembly were explicitly ruled unenforcable. Ruling also lets you modify programs at will to any extent useful, and voids contract clauses preventing that. -- James R. Van Artsdalen ...!ut-sally!utastro!bigtex!james "Live Free or Die" Home: 512-346-2444 Work: 328-0282; 110 Wild Basin Rd. Ste #230, Austin TX 78746
tif@cpe.UUCP (06/29/88)
Written 4:25 pm Jun 25, 1988 by bigtex.UUCP!james in cpe:comp.sy.ibm.pc >Don't forget that when patented, one must make public the algorithm in >detail. Presumably actual source code must be published also. Few >software firms want to publish their source this way. I believe I have read that only the first 15 pages or so must be present in the trademark -- a distant and possibly erroneous memory. Paul Chamberlain Computer Product Engineering, Tandy Corp. ihnp4!sys1!cpe!tif
Robert_A_Freed@cup.portal.com (07/06/88)
Following is the complete text of the verified court complaint
filed by SEA's Thom Henderson (author of ARC) against PKware's
Phil Katz (author of PKXARC and PKARC). I think the importance
of this case and associated issues warrants a net posting of
this length, but my apologies to any who may object.
----cut here--------cut here--------cut here--------cut here----
UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
FOR THE EASTERN DISTRICT OF WISCONSIN
____________________________________________________________
SYSTEM ENHANCEMENT
ASSOCIATES, INC.,
Plaintiff,
v. Case No. 88-C-447
PKWARE, INC. and
PHILLIP W. KATZ,
Defendants.
____________________________________________________________
VERIFIED COMPLAINT
____________________________________________________________
Plaintiff, System Enhancement Associates, Inc.
("SEA"), as and for a complaint alleges as follows:
THE PARTIES - JURISDICTION AND VENUE
1. Plaintiff SYSTEM ENHANCEMENT ASSOCIATES, INC.
hereinafter Plaintiff or SEA, is a corporation of the State
of New Jersey having a place of business at 21 New Street,
Wayne, NJ 07470. Plaintiff is engaged in the business of
developing and licensing others to use computer programs and
software.
2. Defendant PKWARE, INC. is a corporation of
the State of Wisconsin. Upon information and belief, Defen-
dants are engaged in the business of licensing others to use
computer programs and software, and do business in the State
of Wisconsin and in this District. Defendants maintain a
place of business at 7032 Ardara Avenue, Glendale, WI 53209.
3. Defendant Phillip W. Katz ("Katz"), AKA Phil
Katz, is an officer and a director of Defendant PKWARE.
Defendant Katz resides in the State of Wisconsin and in this
District. All acts by Defendant PKWARE complained of herein
were made with full knowledge and under the specific direction
and control of Defendant Katz.
4. This COMPLAINT sets forth causes of action for
copyright infringement under 17 USC 101, et seq and trade-
mark infringement and unfair competition under the Lanham
Act, 15 USC 1051, et seq and under common law.
5. This Court has original jurisdiction over the
Copyright and Lanham Act claims pursuant to 28 USC 1338(a)
and, with respect to the Lanham Act claims, additionally
under 15 USC 1121, and over the other claims under the
doctrine of pendant jurisdiction. This Court further has
jurisdiction over the other claims pursuant to both 28 USC
1338(b), and because this civil action is between citizens
of different States and the matter in controversy exceeds
the sum or value of $10,000, 28 USC 1332(a)(1).
6. Venue is proper as to the Defendants pursuant
to 28 USC 1391 generally and as to the copyright infringement
causes of action pursuant to 28 USC 1400(a).
7. This Court has jurisdiction over the subject
matter in controversy and the parties to this action. Venue
is proper as to the Defendants, who reside or may be found
in this District.
COUNT I: COPYRIGHT INFRINGEMENT
8. Prior to October 1986, Plaintiff, who was then
and ever since has been a citizen of the United States and
the State of New Jersey, created and wrote an original work,
namely a computer program, entitled "ARC File Archive Utility
Version 5.20", and additionally, prior to April 1987, created
and wrote a revised version of such work, entitled "ARC File
Archive Utility Version 5.21" (hereinafter collectively
referred to as the "ARC programs").
9. Each of the ARC programs contains a large
amount of material wholly original with Plaintiff and is
copyrightable subject matter under the laws of the United
States.
10. At all times relevant to this action, Plaintiff
complied in all respects with the Copyright Act of 1976 and
all other laws governing Copyright, and secured the exclusive
rights and privileges in and to the Copyrights to the ARC
programs.
11. Plaintiff has received from the Register of
Copyrights Certificates of Registration, dated and identified
as follows:
a. February 16, 1988, TX2-242-311; and
b. March 30, 1988, TX2-264-701
for, respectively, "ARC File Archive Utility Version 5.20"
and "ARC File Archive Utility Version 5.21".
12. At all times relevant to this action, Plaintiff
has been and is the sole proprietor of all rights, title and
interest in and to the Copyrights in the ARC programs.
13. Each copy of the copyrighted ARC programs
published by Plaintiff and all copies made by Plaintiff or
under its authority had associated therewith a restrictive
license prohibiting copying any ARC programs for purposes of
commercial exploitation.
14. After October 1986 and April 1987, Defendants,
jointly and severally, infringed Plaintiff's Copyrights by
publishing, placing on the market and commercially exploiting
works entitled "PKARC FAST! Archive Create/Update Utility
Version 3.5 04-27-87" and "PKXARC FAST! Archive Extract
Utility Version 3.5 04-27-87" (the "infringing works") which
were copied largely from Plaintiff's copyrighted works "ARC
File Utility Version 5.20" and "ARC File Utility Version
5.21".
15. Continuously since about at least as early as
April 27, 1987, Defendants have, to Plaintiff's irreparable
damage, been publishing, licensing and selling, and otherwise
making commercial exploitation of the infringing works,
utilizing the same channels of commerce as Plaintiff, adver-
tising in the same journals (one example of which is hereto
attached as Plaintiff's Exhibit 10) and marketing such
infringing works in the same manner as Plaintiff.
16. Defendants' infringing works were published
and commercially exploited without license or authorization
by Plaintiff.
17. True copies of Plaintiff's copyrighted works,
and the respective Registrations therefor, are hereto attached
as Plaintiff's Exhibits 1 through 4, respectively.
18. Copies of documentation for Defendants'
infringing works are hereto attached as Plaintiff's Exhibits
5 and 6, respectively. On information and belief, Plaintiff's
Exhibits 5 and 6 are true copies of works of Defendants
published under the authority or license of Defendants,
jointly and severally, for which Defendants bear responsi-
bility.
19. Plaintiff, by its Attorney, notified Defendants
that Defendants have infringed and are infringing Plaintiff's
copyrights by a US Postal Service Certified Mail letter dated
December 23, 1987. True copies of said notice letter and
its Return Receipt are hereto attached as Plaintiff's Exhibits
7 and 8, respectively.
20. Defendants, by their Attorneys, responded by
letter, dated January 8, 1988, to Plaintiff's Attorney denying
infringement. A true copy of Defendants' Attorneys' letter
is attached hereto as Plaintiff's Exhibit 9.
21. At all times here relevant Defendants were
aware of Plaintiff's copyrights in the ARC programs.
22. Notwithstanding knowledge of Plaintiff's
copyrights and specific notice of infringement, Defendants
have continued to infringe Plaintiff's copyrights.
23. Defendants did willfully and deliberately
copy Plaintiff's ARC programs and infringe Plaintiff's copy-
rights.
COUNT II: VIOLATIONS OF THE LANHAM ACT
24. Plaintiff repeats and realleges the averments
and allegations contained in numbered paragraphs hereinabove
as though fully set forth here.
25. Plaintiff has extensively used and promoted
intrastate and interstate commerce the trademark "ARC" in
connection with computer programs and software. Exemplary
uses of Plaintiff's ARC trademark is shown in Exhibits 1 and
3. Plaintiff has continuously used its ARC trademark on its
goods shipped throughout the United States and the world.
The ARC trademark has come to be recognized as identifying
Plaintiff as the source of its products and symbolizes
valuable goodwill belonging to Plaintiff. Such recognition
and goodwill arose and accrued prior to the acts complained
of herein.
26. Due the very high level of originality and
quality of Plaintiff's File Archive Utility programs, and
their distribution methods and marketing, Plaintiff and its
ARC programs have become recognized as the "standard" in
the personal computer industry. An example of such recognition
is hereto attached as Plaintiff's Exhibit 11.
27. Plaintiff has expended significant time and
money in promoting and advertising its File Archive Utility
ARC programs, and the trademark ARC has become associated
with Plaintiff as denoting the source or origin of high
quality File Archive Utility programs. In the personal
computer market and to the users of such computers, the mark
ARC denotes Plaintiff as the source or origin of such
programs. In this regard, an article from Dr. Dobbs Journal,
March 1987, pp 26-28, 30 is hereto attached as Plaintiff's
Exhibit 12.
28. Defendants do not have, nor have ever had, any
right or authorization to use Plaintiff's ARC trademark.
29. Defendants have prominently used and are using
marks confusingly similar to Plaintiff's ARC trademark, to
wit, PKARC and PKXARC. The infringing marks are shown as
used by Defendant in Plaintiff's Exhibits 5, 6 and 13.
30. Defendants have used and continue to use the
marks PKARC and PKXARC in connection with goods functionally
identical to Plaintiff's, in commerce and in the same channels
of trade as Plaintiff's ARC programs. Defendants use such
marks on, and in connection with publishing, distributing,
advertising and marketing throughout the United States, and
in this district, File Archive Utility programs.
31. Defendants unauthorized use of PKARC and
PKXARC is likely to cause confusion, or to cause mistake
or to deceive prospective acquirers of such goods into
believing that the products of Defendants originated with or
under the sponsorship or license of Plaintiff.
32. Defendants, by improper use of Plaintiff's
trademark ARC, have falsely described or represented the
Defendants' PKARC and PKXARC programs as the goods of
Plaintiff and have, by causing such products to enter into
commerce, created a tendency for such false description or
representation to be understood as having an origin or
sponsorship or license of Plaintiff, thereby diverting income
from Plaintiff to Defendants. Plaintiff has been, is being
and is likely to be damaged by the use by Defendants of the
aforesaid false description or representation.
33. Defendant acts are in violation of Section
43(a) of the Lanham Act, 15 USC 1125(a).
34. At all times relevant hereto, Defendants were
aware of Plaintiff's use of the ARC trademark.
35. Upon information and belief, Defendants adopted
the PKARC and PKXARC marks to portray to potential consumers
a relationship between Defendant's products and Plaintiff's
products.
36. Upon information and belief, all Defendant's
acts complained of herein were done with the intent to cause
confusion among customers as to an affiliation between
Defendants and Plaintiff and to capitalize improperly on the
goodwill accruing to Plaintiff.
COUNT III: TRADEMARK INFRINGEMENT; UNFAIR COMPETITION
37. Plaintiff repeats and realleges the averments
and allegations contained in the numbered paragraphs herein
above as though fully set forth here.
38. Defendants are, by the acts complained of
herein, infringing on Plaintiff's trademark rights, and
engaging in unfair trade practices and unfair competition,
all in violation of the common law of the State of Wisconsin.
COUNT IV: COPYRIGHT INFRINGEMENT AND UNFAIR COMPETITION
39. Plaintiff repeats and realleges the averments
and allegations contained in numbered paragraphs hereinabove
as though fully set forth here.
40. Defendants have, in addition to the acts as
alleged above, substantially copied and plagiarized the entire
appearance and user interface and screens which result when
a computer user interacts with or uses Plaintiff's ARC
programs and the manner in which the Plaintiff's ARC programs
interface with and interact with the computer user, with the
specific intent to create a belief with the consumer of a
relationship between Defendants' products and Plaintiff's
products. (A copy of Defendants' advertising, PKWARE, INC.
advertisement, PC TECH JOURNAL, October 1987, p 220, is
hereto attached as Plaintiff's Exhibit 14.)
41. Defendants' acts as heretofore alleged
constitute infringement of Plaintiff's Copyrights and unfair
trade practices and unfair competition to the irreparable
damage of Plaintiff.
42. Defendants' acts, as alleged herein and above,
have been willful and deliberate intending to harm and damage
Plaintiff and its business.
WHEREFORE PLAINTIFF DEMANDS JUDGMENT AS FOLLOWS:
(1) Enjoining Defendants, jointly and severally,
and any of their agents, servants or any in active concert
or participation with any of them, temporarily during the
pendency of this action and thereafter permanently from
infringing Plaintiff's copyrights in any manner, and from
publishing, licensing, selling, distributing or marketing or
otherwise disposing of any copies of Defendants' works PKARC
and PKXARC; and from infringing in any manner Plaintiff's
trademark ARC;
(2) Ordering the Defendants, jointly and severally,
to pay Plaintiff such damages as Plaintiff has sustained in
consequence of Defendants' acts of infringement of Plaintiff's
copyrights, trademark and the unfair trade practices and
unfair competition and to account for:
(a) all gains, profits and advantages derived
by Defendants and each of them by said trade practices
and unfair competition; and
(b) all gains, profits and advantages derived
by Defendants and each of them by infringement of
Plaintiff's copyrights or such damages as to the Court
shall appear proper within the provisions of the Copyright
Act of 1976, but not less than the statutory minimums
therein provided; and
(c) all gains, profits and advantages derived
by Defendants and each of them by infringement of
Plaintiff's trademark or such damages as to the Court
shall appear proper within the provisions of the Lanham
Act;
(3) Trebling Plaintiff's damages and awarding any
statutory damages at the highest level allowed;
(4) Ordering Defendants to deliver up to be
impounded during the pendency of this action all copies of
said works entitled PKARC and PKXARC in the possession
or control of Defendants or either of them or any of their
employees, agents, servants, distributors or licensees and
to deliver up for destruction all copies of any infringing
work, as well as all computer media, diskettes, documentation
and any means for making such infringing copies;
(5) Awarding Plaintiff the costs of this action
and reasonable attorneys' fees against Defendant;
(6) For such other and further relief as is just.
PLAINTIFF'S VERIFICATION:
Thom L. Henderson understanding that willful false
statements and the like so made are punishable by fine or
imprisonment, or both, under Section 1001 of Title 18 of
the United States Code, declares and affirms:
That he is President of Plaintiff corporation and is
authorized to execute this instrument on behalf of said
corporation; that he has read and understands the matters
alleged in the Plaintiff's Complaint; and
That the facts and statements set forth in said
Complaint are, to the best of his knowledge, true; and
all statements made on information and belief are believed
to be true.
Verified and Dated the 2___ day of April, 1988.
_____________________________
Thom L. Henderson
Attorneys for Plaintiff
SYSTEM ENHANCEMENT ASSOCIATES, INC.
FOLEY & LARDNER
By: ______________________________
Michael A. Lechter, Esq.
777 E. Wisconsin Avenue
Milwaukee, WI 53202
(414) 289-3599
THOMAS M. MARSHALL, ESQ.
Powder Mill Village
89 Patriots Road
Morris Plains, NJ 07950
(201) 993-5779
INDEX TO PLAINTIFF' EXHIBITS HERETO ATTACHED
Complaint Plaintiff's Description
Paragraph Exhibit
Reference Number
Para. 17, 25 1 "ARC File Archive Utility Version 5.20"
Para. 17 2 Copyright Registration Certificate
dated February 16, 1988; TX2-242-311
Para. 17, 25 3 "ARC File Archive Utility Version 5.21"
Para. 17 4 Copyright Registration Certificate
dated March 30, 1988; TX2-264-701
Para. 18, 29 5 "PKARC FAST! Archive Create/Update
Utility Version 3.5 04-27-87",
documentation
Para. 18, 29 6 "PKXARC FAST! Archive Extract Utility
Version 3.5 04-27-87", documentation
Para. 19 7 Notice Letter of December 23, 1987
addressed to "Phil Katz, PKWARE, INC."
Para. 19 8 US Postal; Service Return Receipt, dated
December 28, 1987, signed by "H. Katz"
Para. 20 9 Attorney Harry Lensky's response letter
dated January 8, 1988
Para. 15 10 Advertisements of Plaintiff and
Defendants appearing on the same page in
PC TECH JOURNAL, April 1988, p 184
Para. 26 11 Reprint of Review Article, PC WEEK March
4, 1986
Para. 27 12 Dr. Dobbs Journal Article "ARC Wars",
March 1987, pp 26-28, 30
Para. 29 13 Defendants PKWARE, INC. and Phillip W.
Katz Letter postmarked April 19, 1988,
and its attachments
Para. 40 14 Defendant PKWARE, INC. advertisement in
PC TECH JOURNAL, October 1987, p 220
----cut here--------cut here--------cut here--------cut here----
-- Bob Freed INET: Robert_A_Freed@cup.portal.com
UUCP: sun!portal!cup.portal.com!robert_a_freedlarry@sgistl.SGI.COM (Larry Autry) (07/08/88)
In article <7145@cup.portal.com>, Robert_A_Freed@cup.portal.com writes: > Following is the complete text of the verified court complaint Not again. -- Larry Autry larry@sgistl.sgi.com or {ucbvax,sun,ames,pyramid,decwrl}!sgi!sgistl!larry
bicker@hoqax.UUCP (The Resource, Poet of Quality) (07/11/88)
The full text of the complaint has been posted three times now. I'd like to see a copy of the response (assuming that there was one.) -- /kohn/brian.c AT&T Bell Laboratories Semantic Engineering Center The Resource, Poet of Quality ...ihnp4!hoqam!bicker (201) 949-5850 "It is useless for sheep to pass resolutions in favor of vegetarianism while wolves remain of a different opinion." - Wm. Ralph Inge, D.D.
jack@csccat.UUCP (Jack Hudler) (07/12/88)
In article <7145@cup.portal.com> Robert_A_Freed@cup.portal.com writes: | (4) Ordering Defendants to deliver up to be |impounded during the pendency of this action all copies of |said works entitled PKARC and PKXARC in the possession |or control of Defendants or either of them or any of their |employees, agents, servants, distributors or licensees and |to deliver up for destruction all copies of any infringing |work, as well as all computer media, diskettes, documentation |and any means for making such infringing copies; Like my GUN they will have to pry (PKARC) from my cold dead fingers. Jack Hudler -- See above (214)661-8960