Truth alone triumphs.
Satya meva jayathe.
en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Satyameva_Jayate
Immense gratitude to all Open Source developers.
Satya meva jayathe.
en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Satyameva_Jayate
Immense gratitude to all Open Source developers.
Imo they should have tried getting financial compensation. A payday for the devs would've been nice, especially considering stockfish has only gained 6 elo in 6 months.
Looks like there's cheating at all levels in the chess business! Stockfish team should definitely have been compensated for legal fees!
So where are all the people who vehemently defended Chessbase saying Stockfish was full of it, and that Lichess had no merits taking sides?
They settled under INCREDIBLY generous conditions favoring Chessbase.
Congrats to Stockfish team for defending OSS.
They settled under INCREDIBLY generous conditions favoring Chessbase.
Congrats to Stockfish team for defending OSS.
It’s all total scam. When do I get my settlement? I haven’t seen a single penny. I deserve something.
<Comment deleted by user>
@cherouvim said in #9:
> Anyone knows why is the FSFE that will get some money instead of the Stockfish team?
I'm not a lawyer, but it seems to me, the "sf-team" never demanded any compensation for themselves, in this case, and thus (in a civil-court case), there would be no foundation for any judge to "give" any money to them, in the first place.
Not sure, if they would've been eligible to get any, as they don't have any "commercial damage" (which, I think, would be the most straightforward way to claim compensation, in such cases). Maybe they would've been eligible to material compensation from non-material damages, but I would guess, that this would likely be much more complicated a case, and would also require to distribute any possible compensation across a huge number of sf-contributors, which vary widely in the amount of work, they put into sf over many years.
My guess would be, that their main-goal was to prove a point and achieve a victory, that is non-material, in nature - as is the whole sf-endeavor. Seems to me, also, that this way (working out a settlement with some "voluntary compensation" to a general open-source-software entity) makes the whole case more symbolic and meaningful for the idea of open-source-development, in general (far beyond the domain of chess-engines, etc.).
> Anyone knows why is the FSFE that will get some money instead of the Stockfish team?
I'm not a lawyer, but it seems to me, the "sf-team" never demanded any compensation for themselves, in this case, and thus (in a civil-court case), there would be no foundation for any judge to "give" any money to them, in the first place.
Not sure, if they would've been eligible to get any, as they don't have any "commercial damage" (which, I think, would be the most straightforward way to claim compensation, in such cases). Maybe they would've been eligible to material compensation from non-material damages, but I would guess, that this would likely be much more complicated a case, and would also require to distribute any possible compensation across a huge number of sf-contributors, which vary widely in the amount of work, they put into sf over many years.
My guess would be, that their main-goal was to prove a point and achieve a victory, that is non-material, in nature - as is the whole sf-endeavor. Seems to me, also, that this way (working out a settlement with some "voluntary compensation" to a general open-source-software entity) makes the whole case more symbolic and meaningful for the idea of open-source-development, in general (far beyond the domain of chess-engines, etc.).
@Legacyquest said in #12:
> Wow, that's total nonsense that stockfish team didn't get compensation for legal fees at least. Terrible nonsense, must have been a bad judge.
Wow, this statement is so ignorant of what a settlement in a civil court is, that i'm not sure, where to start.
But these are some basics...
1. A settlement is something, that the parties in a civil case *agree* to, both.
2. In germany, a judge *has to* work towards settling cases in a manner, that both parties agree, *by law*.
Ofc, settlements can, effectively, screw one party over, *if* they are ill-informed about their chances, they would have, if they'd fight it out to the end (not a settlement, but actually a judge-ruling, in that case).
...even when they settle for something much weaker, than what they (likely) could achieve, in a court-ruling, that outcome can have various causes, like: Bad lawyers, ill-advising them of their actual chances / limited material or mental abilities to fight it out till the end, when they weigh risks vs. rewards / being bullied by the opponent's party thru tactics, that raise the stakes (legal-fees) by complicating or delaying the case in some way, etc.
...possibly, ofc, also a judge could manipulate a party into agreeing to a weak settlement by hinting to a party, that they tend to favor some points of the opponent's party, but I think it is reckless to just put it on "the judge", without any further information, and ignoring all the other relevant possibilities.
> Wow, that's total nonsense that stockfish team didn't get compensation for legal fees at least. Terrible nonsense, must have been a bad judge.
Wow, this statement is so ignorant of what a settlement in a civil court is, that i'm not sure, where to start.
But these are some basics...
1. A settlement is something, that the parties in a civil case *agree* to, both.
2. In germany, a judge *has to* work towards settling cases in a manner, that both parties agree, *by law*.
Ofc, settlements can, effectively, screw one party over, *if* they are ill-informed about their chances, they would have, if they'd fight it out to the end (not a settlement, but actually a judge-ruling, in that case).
...even when they settle for something much weaker, than what they (likely) could achieve, in a court-ruling, that outcome can have various causes, like: Bad lawyers, ill-advising them of their actual chances / limited material or mental abilities to fight it out till the end, when they weigh risks vs. rewards / being bullied by the opponent's party thru tactics, that raise the stakes (legal-fees) by complicating or delaying the case in some way, etc.
...possibly, ofc, also a judge could manipulate a party into agreeing to a weak settlement by hinting to a party, that they tend to favor some points of the opponent's party, but I think it is reckless to just put it on "the judge", without any further information, and ignoring all the other relevant possibilities.
It's a shame there was no way for both parties to lose this case since they have both created engines that have had huge negative impacts on the world of chess they deserve to be treated in the way as scientists who created the nuclear bomb.
Hans Neimman has the right idea... Sue for 100 million!
This topic has been archived and can no longer be replied to.