Re: A Crime by a Board of Old Imposters

your new argument appears to about litigation. do you have a docket number
or is this another 'analogy' to an argument that has not been presented
properly?
"Znarf" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote in message
news:[EMAIL PROTECTED]
>
> "marc margolies" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote in message
> news:[EMAIL PROTECTED]
> > ssince you say you are an attorney, and i have no reason to assume
> > differently, why do you insist the the central question is 'copyright
> law?'
> > this is a misguided premise.
> > it is misguided because the author of crafty is NOT the plaintiff and
> there
> > are no economic damages at issue, mr attorney.
> > the programmer of list broke a contract. he refused to provide
information
> > persuant to a claim of an ethics violation from one of his competitors
in
> a
> > contest where he contractually agreed to a set of rules and a method of
> > arbitration.
>
>
> Copyright was provided only as an analogous situation in civil/criminal
> procedures.  True, Dr. Hyatt is not a plaintiff, and there appear to be no
> economic damages.  But my point is that the ICGA did not appear to have a
> set procedure for dealing with accusations.  It appears to have been done
in
> a summary, ad-hoc manner, perhaps at the expense of the accused.  Whether
> the accused broke a contract is also unfounded.  What were the terms of
the
> contract?  What was the course of dealing/performance with the ICGA with
> other parties and the accused?  Contracts may or may not be limited to the
> terms they recite.  Too many questions that can't be answered.  So... my
> point is not to disparage the ICGA, but rather ensure that any future
> entrants are at least protected from a "guilty until proved innocent"
> situation, and that they know the EXACT procedure for dealing with
cheating
> accusations.  This way, all parties - ICGA, accused, and accuser - are
> protected.
>
> See my post on another thread for a proposed procedure.  It's just a
> starting point.  Wait, a lot of threads, a copy follows.  As for the
> attorney remark, I just want you to know my frame of reference.  I'm
usually
> concerned about procedures that protect the accused from unfounded
> accusations.
> -------------
>
>     A proposed procedure would be to provide the source code under a
> non-disclosure agreement to the ICGA.
>
> The ICGA could only access and review the source code upon an accusation
of
> "cheating."  The Accuser must provide a factual basis for the accusation
> (e.g., it must be more than "The accused program performed the same two
> moves as program x.").  This would protect entrants from unfounded
> accusations.
>
> .  The ICGA would then evaluate whether the factual basis provided by the
> accuser supports a the accusation (e.g., a valid accusation could be same
> tree/node/score for x positions, etc.).   If  the accusation seems
genuine,
> then the ICGA could examine the source code of the accused and compare it
to
> the source code of the program that the accused allegedly copied.
>
>     Upon a finding of copying/cheating, the accused is given a chance to
> present his side of the story. If the ICGA is not persuaded by the
accused,
> then the source code is returned to the accused and the accused is kicked
> out of of the tournament, and perhaps banned for some time period.
>
>     All findings are reduced to writing for the protection of all
parties -
> the ICGA, the accuser, and the accused.  Last thing you need is litigation
> based only on words and faulty memories.
>
>     Upon the completion of the tournament, all source code is returned to
> entrants.
>
> Time periods for each phase must be set in advance, and entrants must be
> available during the entirety of the tournament.
>
>