MartinC has recently made public his plans for a development of the PCF format on a mixed freeware/commercial basis. I'd just like to point out that I am the originator of Mover and the PCF concept, which I invented in order to protect the Intellectual Property Rights (IPR) of original creators like Daz, and to allow the transfer of figures etc within the Poser community without risk of prosecution. I allowed MartinC access to my source code so that he could develop a Mac version so as to ensure that the Mover benefits were available to all, regardless of their computer type. As the inventor I own the Intellectual Property Rights, not just to the source code but to the basic concept. The fact that I make no charge for the use of Mover does not alter this. It is somewhat ironic that the concept which was developed specifically to protect IPR should now be hijacked by MartinC without my knowledge and without my permission. I have today written to MartinC advising him that this is illegal and that he must cease immediately. Martin has stated to me that DAZ intends to enter into a commercial relationship with him for his development of PCF. I don't know whether this is true but I have today also advised DAZ that I own the IPR to the Mover/PCF concept and that MartinC has no authority to negotiate this with them and that any such agreement would be an infringement of my IPR and therefore illegal.

That is really interesting, attempting to outright steal your work, not too good at all. daz3d likes .pcf because one must own the original .obj mesh in order to use it. Which is a venue for making more money on an already sold product. I always dislike supporting the giants when there is no point. Even my long distance carrier is a micro carrier, 3.9 to 4.5 cents per minute. I only do it if I have to. Alex

I don't think you've got anything to worry about (plenty to be angry about maybe) .. there's thousands of people right here (myself included) who would easily back you up any way possible.. Dolph.

You know....when i read the thread on revamping the mover for use with daz figures, i kind of wondered where your voice was in all of this. damn...that's just slimey, in my book. add that to changing the eula, after the fact, and demanding that we submit our own original meshes...i am not talking tailor, here...nor, am i even talking the "contour" tool in rhino...i'm talking about hand drawn meshes, made to fit the m2 figures.... you're right...you do own the code to the mover. and, guess what else...i don't think daz can own a body shape. period. they should just back down, and settle for the cut of the pie that they already have. demanding all the pie is gonna bring them down, i think. i am disgusted. Pop...Pop...Poppi!!!

To bring my post from another thread here.... NOTE: I am in NO way telling you that I don't think you should pursue your rights, or that you have a right to protect yourself. Nor do I think you should just let someone take your work if you have the ability to protect it. Trust me, as someone with a lot of intellectual property int he business I do I absolutely believe in protecting IP :) I am trying to understand what IP you are talking about, and trying to see how it fits with what I know on the topics. ----------------- While I certainly can see where you own the source code, and you may well have a case to get yourself involved in the process there are some things that are worth noting: 1) No one "owns" file formats as far as I can tell. You may have a patent on a specific process used to create or decode them, but the file format itself is just data. 2) The "basic concept" of these utilities has a long history of prior art out there. Heck, the unix "diff" and "patch" utilities could be a tamplate for this type of thing... and certainly public key cryptography is. So it might be best for someone to avoid using the PCF format if you wish them too because you did a lot for the Poser community... but anyone could write a program with a similar function without having to really worry about anything as far as I know. For instance, a utility like this with an XML underpinning would not be a big problem.

It is legal to create a utility that encodes a file based on another. It is NOT legal to create a program that creates a file with Maz's PCF format without Maz's permission. Both written code and algorithms can be legally protected; the algorithm would be necessary to create a PCF file, even if the code is altered. So, it depends on whether MartinC is making a program that produces PCF files or a file format that is a derivative/expansion of the PCF format, or one that is based on the same idea but is completely different and wholey original. His original message is rather ambiguous towards that.

It is merely an Ebot marker. ;]

Ebot me, baby!

Ebot me too :)

Good for you! If DAZ can come out and say that they own morphs other people created on meshes that other people created, then they need to be treading very lightly on this issue.

I haven't looked at it yet, but you might be interested that there's a public beta encoding utility available at PoserPros. Funny how nobody bothered to mention this in any of the other forums. Ho hum.

BMK

I'm sure Maz and MartinC will work this out in private. I certainly don't want their communications on this subject to be displayed on this forum.

Thanks.

-JeffH.

Questor, when version 1.0 of my utility is released (within a few days), it will be announced and available on every community's Free Stuff section. It will be completely free for personal and commercial uses. Thanks for your interest. :)

Nah, what's really funny is that Daz's newest offering (on sale for $21, regularly $35) has effectively no body morphs in it. (SkirtLong, SkirtShort, Open pocket, Close pocket, etc. do not count as body morphs to me.) We also can not distribute morphs to make the $35, 3 item set fit Vicki 2 or Steph. I'd considered purchasing the set because Vicki and Steph need to go to work after all their time at the beach, but the complete lack of body morphs plus the still unclear stance on distributing 3rd person morphs to make the clothing fit means my wallet is not coming out any time soon.

mark for e-bot

.

OK Russel, thanks for the response. I was wondering about that.

You know, the more I watch events unfolding, the more certain I am that someone has scripted a comedy of errors and is playing it out across cyberspace. Of course, I'm sure that DAZ has by now realized that Maz's position is, in fact, enforceable... Back to the shadows to watch and chuckle. Paul

email

.

Attached Link: http://www.poserpros.com/forums/viewtopic.php?p=24225&highlight=#24225

This subject matter again. ;P While we are at it again, DAZ did post another 'Clarification of Recent Confusion' message at PoserPros. I sure would appreciate it if they would post those at Renderosity too.

From Chad Smiths Poser Pros post: "- We permit complimentary derivative works when such works are not distributed in a manner allowing people to bypass the need for the original products from which they were created. DAZ has always conducted business in this way. A simple rule of thumb is that if a derivative work compliments and requires the product from which it was created we do not have a problem with it. If the product competes with or replaces the need for the original product from which is was created it is a problem." ~ Chad Smith Sounds to me like "Go ahead and make that sweater for Victoria" using Victoria and The Taylor. Am I wrong? Alex

I am terribly sorry that this happened, and I must confess that I don't understand it. I will get in touch with Maz today and try to solve it, however since Maz decided to post this before he tried to reach me I think I have the right to defend myself against the attack. Before I go into details: I did not steal any code or concept from him, I do not and I will never do so. period. dot. 1) Several years ago, I decided to add PCF encoding/decoding to Maconverter. I worked out the encoding scheme by observation myself, but got in touch with Maz about a couple of oddities. For the following months we collaborated in order to improve and bugfix the format. 2) Maz once offered to give his source code for a Mac port, and he offered it to me as well. As a matter of fact, he never gave it to me, because I didn't need it. He is using a PC framework that doesn't exist on Mac, so the source is mostly useless for this purpose, and I decided to code the encoding/decoding myself. I repeat it - I never saw the source code for Mover. 3) I met Maz two times in person and we talked a lot about a follow up to the PCF format, I even made a design suggestion for the format itself. It was designed in a way that Maz could do a PC version and I do the Mac version (which means a lot of compromises). For various reasons it got delayed again and again, and we lost touch for nearly a year. 4) Last year I discovered a new framework which enables me to code a tool for both Mac and PC, and because the need of such a tool is obvious, I started to write a new one. It no longer got the need to compromise the format in order to code it with two different frameworks on two different platforms, so it got a lot of advantages. 5) I just felt a bit sad because it means that I was going to make a new development without Maz (who became a friend for me, and I knew that he was working on his tool as well). I contacted him several times last year, I even sent him an early test version of the tool user interface, but never got a reply about this. However, Maz rarely posted on the boards during this long time as well, so I assumed he was just terribly busy. 6) A few weeks ago, I contacted him again about my recent plans. I know that a couple of commercial users already use PCF in return of the promise to buy the commercial version one day. Because of this, I suggested Maz to share the fee of my tool for the selected list of those artists. Maz has nothing to do with the new tool, but I thought that it is a friendly gesture. I did not get any reply from him. 7) I repeat it one more time: I do not use the PCF format for any commercial purpose. I do not even use the suggested "TCF" format that we once discussed (and which actually was almost entirely created by me). I'm working on a completely new tool with a completely new format which is much advanced over the earlier suggestions. 8) The only thing that I may have done wrong is the fact that I used the term "follow up to the PCF format" in my description. To my knowledge "follow up" means that it is something new, like "DVD" is the "follow up" to "VHS". It was meant this way, I just quoted PCF to give people an idea what the whole thing is about. It did not mean that it uses any code/concept/technology from PCF. If Maz would have contacted me once over the last year, if he would have asked me once about things like this, we could have easily worked it out - I could have sent him this text. However, he decided to attack me straight away here on this board - I am very sorry about this, and I can only hope that he will calm down now.

...gee whiz that makes some sense! My apologies from my response of mislead misconception in post #2. So it is only the idea that is being stolen...for profit with DAZ Productions of course. outside of cold legal standing, there is a such thing as "moral law" to follow. It is that which is a major part of the basis of capable civilization. lol

Yes, I never said the source was stolen. I only went public because Martin announced his intentions publicly. All future correspondence between me and Martin will be in private. Hopefully we will soon reach an amicable agreement. Life's too short for this sort of grief.

I find interesting that DAZ, to protect their own rights,could have infringed Maz rights :-)

I repeat it one more time - nothing was stolen, nothing was infringed, and (as far as DAZ goes) nothing is official. If you intend to write a tool for copyright protection for Poser files, you need to talk to DAZ (among others). If you think about selling something Poser related one day in future, you consider talking to DAZ - nothing less, nothing more. One more time: Nothing that I do (or plan to do) has anything to do with Maz. I don't use the slightest snippet of any invention by him. I am sorry that he panicked this way, and I hope that it all calms down now.

This is what I hate about such threads: 1.) Someone comes out and says "You stole someone's idea/invention." 2.) We get all excited, fighting for "the good of the artist and community." 3.) The debate and explanations ensue. 4.) We're told it's no longer any of our business. This happened recently with the Amy figure, and DAZ, and is still bubbling over the Tailor/Michael 2 issue. Listen folks, if you run into such a problem, why not just deal with the people involved, directly and privately? Either that, or have the decency to keep us in the loop ALL the way. Ron

CONTACT U.S. PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE ASAP. GET A PATENT ON YOUR CODE. YOU WILL HAVE THE COPYRIGHTS. WHICH MEANS YOU HAVE THE RIGHT TO ALLOW SOMEONE TO COPY (IN ORDER TO CONVERT TO MAC). THIS ALSO PROTECTS YOUR I.P.R. AND IF DAZ PERSUES/GENERATES A COMMERCIAL VERSION YOU CAN SUE THE PANT OFF 'EM.

"If you think about selling something Poser related one day in future, you consider talking to DAZ - nothing less, nothing more. " Er... why?

You know, folks, it's all fine and well that you want to protect your fellow artists, but please don't start accusing people of things you really have no knowledge of the law on. Copyright is not the same as trademark is not the same as patent. And each has its own legalities, the full scope of which none of us probably understands. You CANNOT own a concept. If you could, then Ford would be the only company making cars.

... then Ford would be the only company making cars. Nope, Daimler-Benz. ;P (1886 Benz Patent Motor Car)

I'm not sure source code is legally considered a concept. (though it is quite a concept, lol) In fact, I think that's why its usually encrypted and the resulting "soft" ware is usually copyrighted. I may know absolutely nothing about getting a patent or getting copyrights, but hey...the same forking principal applies. This person's got a right to protect that, and no, I didn't accuse anyone of anything. <------------smartypants

Source code can be protected. The concept of encoding a file cannot. And I wasn't speaking specifically to you, EvoShandor. :-)

Look, folks, we've been told we don't have any part in this discussion. Sure, Maz got us all excited. But then he turns around and says the resolution will be private... none of our business. I've decided to avoid any and all threads which allege such violations of copyrights or intellectual property in the future. Any such allegations belong in private conversations anyway, or submitted to "proper authorities or channels." We're not a kangaroo court, and we have no power to do anything about it.

woo boy.

You guys got it all wrong. I thought of everything first. Everyone is stealing my ideas.

I agree with Ron 100% - must stop the drugs now... The only thing these "alert possible mesh theft," and similar posts do is invite people to take sides and start an unnecessary mini-war. I'll give Maz the benefit of the doubt and assume that wasn't his purpose, but public theft charges when you guys apparently haven't even tried to settle this isn't going to help anyone. Inevitably, people rise to the bait and start a partisan strugle for their preferred competitor and suddenly, everyone is a copyright lawyer. With two different stories from the principals, none of us is equipped to make any valid conclusions on this. What's even more disturbing is the increasing frequency with which this seems to be happening. maybe it's pre-Poser 5 nerves or the pollen count, but I wish it would go away. If anyone wants recruits for a crusade against some villain, let's see some free product. I'll side with whoever pays their mercenaries best. Absent that, as Ron said, "...deal with the people involved, directly and privately." Oh God, maybe I need MORE drugs.

Well I am glad to see that Martin seems to be well on the good side of ethical in all this... because it makes the resulting issues simpel and easy. * PCF is a file format. While it is conceivable that the algorithm Maz uses to produce the format is patented the basic file format cannot be so patented. Thus, reverse engineering the PCF format without lookign at source code will almost always result in a perfectly legal utility. * The concept of encoding a file with another file is much, much older than PCF. So the basic concept behind PCF would never stand up to a patent challenge. Heck, a simple, cross platform version of this utility could be hacked together using the "diff" or "patch" utilities and a batch file if you wanted to be nice. So it looks like Martin is making a new format, with all new code, not based on the Maz code that he apparently never saw. I really can't imagine that there is a problem here.

"Absent that, as Ron said, "...deal with the people involved, directly and privately." Oh God, maybe I need MORE drugs." Well you know I'm glad you agree on what is certainly the most constructive attitude toward this whole issue. Now barring that, I'm frankly fed up with such a demeaning reference whenever someone says they agree with me. I am a reasonable and intelligent person who has the best interests of this community at heart. If that is a "sick or weird perspective," and something you need to apologize for, then your own way of thinking is skewed, or you really do need to stop taking drugs. Enough said.

You're right Ron. Though I meant it as a joke, I'm sorry if I offended you. Perhaps zings like the "Ignore Ron Button" someone proposed stem from a certain perception of some of your own past posts. It may be my imagination, but it seems that possibly you are making a conscious effort to change that of late. If that is the case, then you have my certainly have compliments.

Attached Link: http://www.renderosity.com/messages.ez?ForumID=12355&Form.ShowMessage=783994

The problem with debates like this is simply that no one ever gets the chance to see real evidence. All that you get are claims: Member A claims that Member B is a thief, 20 people claim their disgust, and when Member B finally finds the thread all he can do is to claim that he is innocent. No one has a chance to get a real picture, all you can do is to believe one and to disbelieve another. I spend some time considering possibilities to improve this situation. Many people have ebot-ed this thread, signalling true interest in its progress and outcome. Currently no one has the slightest idea what we are really talking about, so I have decided to give everyone (who's interested in this specific issue) some solid information about the real technical background. It will help to understand what all this fuss is about, and it will enable you to see things in perspective. If you only read this thread you may get the impression that we are arguing about protecting "a horde of elephants", while in fact we rather argue on a single old dehydrated flea. I have posted a description of the technical background in the Developer Forum, if you are not afraid to read a single line of very light mathematics you are welcome to read and to make your own judgement. Thank you for your attention.