[Bende]

I've put together some system notes for a 2/1 system based mainly on Fred Gitelman's articles, Levin's and Weinstein's system, and Justin Lall's articles. The idea was to get a complete system playable by a group of people who might differ in how much complexity they wanted to add to the system. Therefore the suggested conventions are separated from the base system. I fully realize that this system contains very little to nothing new or original ideas. Still, maybe someone finds it useful.

In several instances, I have tried to patch ideas from several sources and I'm not at all sure I got it right. Any comments, suggestions for improvements or anything else, are greatly appreciated.

<Links deleted until I get approval to post them.>

This post has been edited by Bende: 2012-May-02, 03:27

[mgoetze]

I think you should use -- rather than --- between bids. Is the source code available?

[Bende]

mgoetze, on 2012-May-01, 07:31, said:

I think you should use -- rather than --- between bids. Is the source code available?

It's written in LaTeX (which you might have realized already). I don't have the source code uploaded anywhere but I can e-mail it to you if you wish.

[mgoetze]

Bende, on 2012-May-01, 09:12, said:

It's written in LaTeX (which you might have realized already). I don't have the source code uploaded anywhere but I can e-mail it to you if you wish.

Yes, that's why I asked. $myusername at $myusername dot net please.

[Phil]

Bende, on 2012-May-01, 06:56, said:

I've put together some system notes for a 2/1 system based mainly on Fred Gitelman's articles, Levin's and Weinstein's system notes, and Justin Lall's articles.

Maybe you should ask them first.

[Bende]

Phil, on 2012-May-01, 10:10, said:

Maybe you should ask them first.

Oh, I didn't realize that could be an issue, but of course you are right. Maybe I should remove this thread.

[han]

I looked at it briefly, it looks nice.

[Cthulhu D]

Bende, on 2012-May-01, 10:24, said:

Oh, I didn't realize that could be an issue, but of course you are right. Maybe I should remove this thread.

I'm pretty sure people published their notes on the basis that people would use it in their systems. If you're correctly attributing stuff, not sure what the problem would be?

[phil_20686]

Phil, on 2012-May-01, 10:10, said:

Maybe you should ask them first.

If they are (freely) available on the web then they are in the public domain, you must attribute and acknowledge, but no need to ask permission. The only caveat is that you cannot use them for profit.

All bridge systems that have been played in a public event are regarded as being in the public domain anyway, so assuming that there is nothing particularly revolutionary in these articles its no problem.

[mgoetze]

phil_20686, on 2012-May-01, 18:22, said:

If they are (freely) available on the web then they are in the public domain, you must attribute and acknowledge, but no need to ask permission. The only caveat is that you cannot use them for profit.

All bridge systems that have been played in a public event are regarded as being in the public domain anyway, so assuming that there is nothing particularly revolutionary in these articles its no problem.

Phil is not a lawyer, obviously.

[Phil]

mgoetze, on 2012-May-02, 00:59, said:

Phil is not a lawyer, obviously.

Yes, thank god.

[phil_20686]

mgoetze, on 2012-May-02, 00:59, said:

Phil is not a lawyer, obviously.

But if I was, I might have quoted from the relevant parts of US copyright act (1976):

Quote

17 U.S.C. § 107Notwithstanding the provisions of sections 17 U.S.C. § 106 and 17 U.S.C. § 106A, the fair use of a copyrighted work, including such use by reproduction in copies or phonorecords or by any other means specified by that section, for purposes such as criticism, comment, news reporting, teaching (including multiple copies for classroom use), scholarship, or research, is not an infringement of copyright. In determining whether the use made of a work in any particular case is a fair use the factors to be considered shall include:

• the purpose and character of the use, including whether such use is of a commercial nature or is for nonprofit educational purposes;
• the nature of the copyrighted work;
• the amount and substantiality of the portion used in relation to the copyrighted work as a whole; and
• the effect of the use upon the potential market for or value of the copyrighted work.

The fact that a work is unpublished shall not itself bar a finding of fair use if such finding is made upon consideration of all the above factors.^[1]

Quote

In no case does copyright protection for an original work of authorship extend to any idea, procedure, process, system, method of operation, concept, principle, or discovery, regardless of the form in which it is described, explained, illustrated, or embodied in such work

Ie, you cannot copyright a piece of bridge system. You can copyright a particular mode of expression, such as a book, but if the item does not have commercial value essentially any use is `fair use'.

[Phil]

I've never seen Levin-Weinstein's notes on the web. Are they available to the general public?

[Phil]

phil_20686, on 2012-May-02, 10:24, said:

Ie, you cannot copyright a piece of bridge system. You can copyright a particular mode of expression, such as a book, but if the item does not have commercial value essentially any use is `fair use'.

I see.

So if I am a bridge professional and use their notes to get clients and get paid for doing so, this isn't considered profitable? We don't know what the intent of the user is, much less of the chain of users downstream.

I wonder what Meckwell would think if I went to the trouble of compiling their notes from what I've read in the Bridge World and Vugraph and published them online.

I've seen Gitelmans articles. They were originally published by a Canadian Bridge Magazine, and I could be wrong, but I would guess he had their permission to publish his own ideas online.

[mikeh]

Phil, on 2012-May-02, 09:01, said:

Yes, thank god.

I am going to have to retain Ken Rexford to represent me in the defamation action. Hmmm....you have that pesky amendment....well, Ken can retain me in Canada.....publication on the internet constitutes publication wherever it can be downloaded.

If we have any other lawyers here (Art?), maybe we can get a class action certified

[mikeh]

Phil, on 2012-May-02, 10:46, said:

I see.

So if I am a bridge professional and use their notes to get clients and get paid for doing so, this isn't considered profitable? We don't know what the intent of the user is, much less of the chain of users downstream.

I wonder what Meckwell would think if I went to the trouble of compiling their notes from what I've read in the Bridge World and Vugraph and published them online.

I've seen Gitelmans articles. They were originally published by a Canadian Bridge Magazine, and I could be wrong, but I would guess he had their permission to publish his own ideas online.

I would be surprised if the CBF (Canadian Bridge Federation) felt that it ought to restrict Fred's ability to republish articles that he was kind enough to contribute to the CBF publication. After all, it's not as if he got paid to contribute (as far as I know, and knowing how small the budget has been and remains). It is possible that he expressly reserved copyright, but even if he didn't, Canadians are usually adverse to silly claims such as that Fred can't re-use his articles/ideas.

As for compiling methods based on public disclosure by Meckwell, or anyone else.....I see no reason why one can't. I don't think that ascribing a usage to a bidding sequence is intellectual property...see the other phil's extract from US law...Canadian law is to similar effect, as far as I can recall.....I stress that I am not an IP expert.

Now, taking articles written by others and republishing them in one's one for-profit text would be a different story.

[Cthulhu D]

Phil, on 2012-May-02, 10:46, said:

I wonder what Meckwell would think if I went to the trouble of compiling their notes from what I've read in the Bridge World and Vugraph and published them online.

People already have as best you can? Fantunes is probably a better example. That said, it's a completely different thing having some reverse engineered notes and being able to work out what's actually being played. Otherwise Fantunes wouldn't be an issue.

[blackshoe]

So somebody publishes a book on, say, 2/1, or Precision, or Polish Club, or Romex, or whatever, and no one can play that system because it's copyright?

Ridiculous.

[Phil]

blackshoe, on 2012-May-02, 19:00, said:

So somebody publishes a book on, say, 2/1, or Precision, or Polish Club, or Romex, or whatever, and no one can play that system because it's copyright?

Ridiculous.

Didn't I buy the book?

[mikeh]

blackshoe, on 2012-May-02, 19:00, said:

So somebody publishes a book on, say, 2/1, or Precision, or Polish Club, or Romex, or whatever, and no one can play that system because it's copyright?

Ridiculous.

That would be ridiculous. But if somebody publishes a book on 2/1, or Precision, etc it would be wrong for a later author to copy extracts from that book without permission.