The New Sudoku Players' Forum

[dukuso]

@Tso
at least he doesn't claim copyright for the puzzles ! (as told in email)

@pappocom : I'd liked to hear your opinion on sudoku-copyright, though !

@pappocom : maybe you can just add a new forum about sudoku
books/magazines here ?
Although then it would be scattered in different posts.
A list of all the books and then some reviews (i.e. Tso's :-))
would be fine.

Or better wait first whether I'm the only one or others want it too

[Nick70]

Don't panic.

If anything has been posted here and remains here, it's OK. So just keep doing what you've been doing.

Wayne, dukuso isn't "panicing", he is looking from support from you, because he is on a crusade to prove that sudokus cannot be copyrighted, on the basis that they are mathematical entities that just "exist" and can only be "discovered", not be created as an intellectual work.

Dukuso, maybe you could try here that trick you played on the other forum, taking a copyrighted collection of puzzles and reposting it stating it to be "public domain". I would suggest you do it with one of the Times books this time.

[Nick70]

And tso is so angry to the fact that the word sudoku appears in the site and fears that it will give a bad name to the puzzle and drive away future interested puzzlers...

I can relate to tso.

I bought a local newspaper today, which I hadn't been buying for months and, unsurprisingly enough, they are running a "Sudoku" column just like everyone else.

Two puzzles were given, an "easy" and "medium". The easy one had 44 clues and looked like a random mess. The medium one still looked like a random mess, but at least it had "only" 32 clues. I tried that one. After placing a few numbers, I got stuck. Eventually, I typed it in Simple Sudoku, and as expected the program reported that the puzzle was invalid because it had 15 solutions.

If these were the first two sudokus I had ever seen, I would probably not look at them again.

[dukuso]

>If anything has been posted here and remains here, it's OK.
>So just keep doing what you've been doing.
>
>Wayne, dukuso isn't "panicing", he is looking from support
>from you,

hey, I won't expect to get support from _him_.
But maybe he has some information about the legal situation.
Just to clarify. I think he should have researched this a bit.

>because he is on a crusade to prove that sudokus cannot
>be copyrighted, on the basis that they are mathematical
>entities that just "exist" and can only be "discovered",
>not be created as an intellectual work.
>
>Dukuso, maybe you could try here that trick you played

not a "trick"

>on the other forum, taking a copyrighted collection of puzzles
>and reposting it stating it to be "public domain".

it's not at all clear, whether that collection was copyrighted.
Suppose it was not, then you are doing false accusation
of copyright infringement here.

>I would suggest you do it with one of the Times books this time.

OK. Maybe later. (Are they available in computer readable form BTW. ?)
Let's first figure out the legal situation.
I also posted to several newsgroups. Let's see.
And as I said, I don't want to hurt anyone. That was only a small
part of puzzles posted by the author himself to public
refusing to specify about the claimed copyright.
I just hope that the whole issue will be reconsidered and
we get clarity.
I don't know, whether Wayne or the Times or both do
claim copyright on individual sudokus, or collections
of sudokus which AFAIR Wayne already admitted he "created"
randomly by computer.


Guenter.

[dukuso]

And tso is so angry to the fact that the word sudoku appears in the site and fears that it will give a bad name to the puzzle and drive away future interested puzzlers...

I can relate to tso.

I bought a local newspaper today, which I hadn't been buying for months and, unsurprisingly enough, they are running a "Sudoku" column just like everyone else.

Two puzzles were given, an "easy" and "medium". The easy one had 44 clues and looked like a random mess. The medium one still looked like a random mess, but at least it had "only" 32 clues. I tried that one. After placing a few numbers, I got stuck. Eventually, I typed it in Simple Sudoku, and as expected the program reported that the puzzle was invalid because it had 15 solutions.

If these were the first two sudokus I had ever seen, I would probably not look at them again.

put that newspaper on the list hopefully to be set up by Wayne !
Let's rate the newspaper by the quality of their sudokus ;-)
That should wake them up.
BTW. you didn't say whether they claimed copyright for those
two "sudokus" ?!?

[Pappocom]

There seems to be a widespread misapprehension that "copyright" = "patent". That is not so. Copyright is a much lesser right than patent.

I most certainly do claim copyright in the puzzles produced by the program I wrote.

However, I will not discuss the legal issues of copyright, patent, etc. any further. As a former lawyer and judge, I know this is a complex area of the law, and anything I say here could be construed as "legal advice" - which is something I am not in a position to give, even if I intended it.

If anybody wants authoritative advice on these subjects, they should seek their own legal advice.

- Wayne

[Karyobin]

Goodness. Does anybody know any good magazines?

[dukuso]

...
I most certainly do claim copyright in the puzzles produced by the program I wrote.
...
- Wayne

I just noticed this while looking up referrences for someone else.
Can't believe, that I didn't comment on this when it was posted !

So, do I get this right, he claims copyright for each sudoku,
which anyone might ever find using his program ???
I can't believe it.
Where are creativity and originality ?

Let me write a program to print all numbers 1,2,..
and then claim copyright for each of these ;-)

-Guenter.

[Karyobin]

Oh dear. I think he may have been referring to the method of production Geunter, not the finished article.

[dukuso]

>Oh dear. I think he may have been referring to the method
>of production Geunter, not the finished article.

he clearly said, that he claimed for copyright on the sudokus
themselves, not only on the program.

the "method of production", that must be a mouse-click
or e key-pressure, I don't know his program.

The writing of the program is another issue, it is reflected
on copyright of the program.

When he or someone else uses that program to generate sudokus
maybe months or years later, that sudoku-generation can't render the
previous program-writing process into "creative, sudoku-generating work"
thus giving the sudokus some originality going back
to that program writing ??

I mean, the creativity and originality of the work must be
determined at the moment when it's done.

When you construct a machine and then the machine creates something,
then you won't own copyright on the machine's output, just only
on the machine itself.

(IMO)

-Guenter.

[Karyobin]

he clearly said, that he claimed for copyright on the sudokus themselves, not only on the program.

No, he clearly said:

I most certainly do claim copyright in the puzzles produced by the program I wrote.

That's all that needs to be said. Did you fail to notice an earlier post wherein Wayne informed us he is a former judge? Whereas many of us differ in our opinions as to which puzzles are valid or invalid (and whether or not Wayne's program is correct in some of the judgements it arrives at), even I'm not argumentative enough to think that I could argue the semantics of law with a judge!

Let me put it this way:

I've done hundreds of Pappocom's Hards and Very Hards, and I've done a fair few of angusj's as well. I've noticed a definite difference in style/construction between the two. They require subtley different methods to solve, implying that the algorithms used to create them are different. Were I to print out one of Wayne's on a monthly basis and put it in the local paper, no-one would know my source. Were I to produce an entire book only using Wayne's program, I think it far more likely that an analysis of the initial clue distribution (by a suspicious and disgruntled puzzler) could reveal the possibility that I haven't been entirely honest about my methods of generating the sudoku.

I believe this is the situation to which Wayne's statement was directed, and going totally out on a limb I'd say that of course you can't copyright a puzzle, but I'm sure I've heard of Intellectual Property and I reckon that the program will definitely fall into that area .

But I'm not remotely legally trained, so you don't have to listen to me. Just remember that you've already been told you'll be getting no further input into the discussion from 'da Boss', so whilst we prattle on in our amateur manner, until we take legal advice, we'll get no further forward.

[dukuso]

>Guenter wrote:
>>he clearly said, that he claimed for copyright on the
>>sudokus themselves, not only on the program.
>
>No, he clearly said:
>
>Wayne wrote:
>>I most certainly do claim copyright in the puzzles
>>produced by the program I wrote.

thus claiming copyright for the sudokus=puzzles.
So, what do you think am I missing here ?

>That's all that needs to be said. Did you fail to notice an earlier
>post wherein Wayne informed us he is a former judge?

no. He even used that as an excuse to avoid answering/arguing about it.
Saying that everything that he might write could be interpreted as
illegal legal advice or such.
So his only defence here will be by censoring ...

>Whereas many
>of us differ in our opinions as to which puzzles are valid or
>invalid (and whether or not Wayne's program is correct in some
>of the judgements it arrives at), even I'm not argumentative
>enough to think that I could argue the semantics of law with a judge!

Retired New-Zealand Judge. Specialized in - whatever, but
probably not international copyright in internet. Refusing
to argue about it. In a case where he is involved himself
and thus biased.

So, what else can we do than trying to interpret the laws by ourselves ?
It's just some effort, but dictated by logics and not priviledged to
judges although I'd expect them to do this with fewer effort
than people like me. But the result should be the same - or something
is wrong with the whole legal system.

>Let me put it this way:
>
>I've done hundreds of Pappocom's Hards and Very Hards, and I've done
>a fair few of angusj's as well. I've noticed a definite difference
>in style/construction between the two. They require subtley different
>methods to solve, implying that the algorithms used to create them
>are different. Were I to print out one of Wayne's on a monthly basis
>and put it in the local paper, no-one would know my source.
>Were I to produce an entire book only using Wayne's program,
>I think it far more likely that an analysis of the initial clue
>distribution (by a suspicious and disgruntled puzzler) could
>reveal the possibility that I haven't been entirely honest
>about my methods of generating the sudoku.

you can just sell the book without claiming copyright on the
sudokus themselves, but only on your representation,collecting
of them in book-form. You can get the sudokus from whatever
program you want. You can even lie from where you got them.
Lying is quite common in books and not punished legally usually.

>I believe this is the situation to which Wayne's statement was
>directed, and going totally out on a limb I'd say that of course
>you can't copyright a puzzle,

that depends

>but I'm sure I've heard of
>Intellectual Property and I reckon that the program will
>definitely fall into that area .

the program, but not the puzzles which it produces.

>But I'm not remotely legally trained, so you don't have
>to listen to me. Just remember that you've already been
>told you'll be getting no further input into the discussion
>from 'da Boss', so whilst we prattle on in our amateur manner,
>until we take legal advice, we'll get no further forward.

no, the legal texts , court-decisions and papers are available online.
I also got some input from newsgroups etc.
I don't think you could get more qualified advice from lawyers
etc. - they are controversal too.
It's a matter of research and diligence and logical reasoning,
not so much of knowledge or training.

Watch the subject ! I assume that earlier or later there will be some
court decision about related matter. Internet is still new...
Copyright is infiltrating mathematics and it seems just a matter
of time that some court will have to give its opinion.


-Guenter.

[Karyobin]

Okay Guenter, whatever you say. There are certain nuances of langauge which, though your English is immeasurably better than my German, I think you may be missing. E.g.

thus claiming copyright for the sudokus=puzzles.
So, what do you think am I missing here ?

I think you are missing the same fact that you missed earlier: it is not the puzzles, but the fact of their creation by a specific engine.

But, should you wish to continue this further, I suggest you PM Wayne. I recommend you include the "specialized in - whatever" bit, and the preceding section where you clarified he was a "Retired New-Zealand Judge" (my emphasis), like it somehow doesn't mean as much and he only spent thirty-odd years standardising livestock methane emissions - he's bound to like those.

One more thing, do you think you'd mind having a go at using the 'Quote' function in future? It's much easier on the eye.

I hope my

Refusing to argue about it. In a case where he is involved himself and thus biased.

doesn't annoy you too much.

[dukuso]

>it is not the puzzles, but the fact of their creation by a
>specific engine.

but how might he want to copyright that "fact of creation" ?
I can't see what else he might claim copyright for
if not the product of that "creation". The sudokus.

and he had written:
>I most certainly do claim copyright in the puzzles
>produced by the program I wrote.

so : "copyright in the puzzles"

>But, should you wish to continue this further, I suggest
>you PM Wayne. I recommend you include the "specialized
>in - whatever" bit, and the preceding section where you
>clarified he was a "Retired New-Zealand Judge" (my emphasis),
>like it somehow doesn't mean as much and he only spent
>thirty-odd years standardising livestock methane emissions [Viehfurz]
> - he's bound to like those.

New Zealand as opposed to global internet. Seriously,
how many people are here from New Zealand whom he might
be giving illegal legal advice by answering here ?

Retired as opposed to actual developements of fast growing
copyright issues in internet. Unlikely that he did this
in the "thirty-odd years".

As for PM, he already said, he won't discuss this.
When he changes his mind he is welcome to enter,
of course. But we might be able to figure this out
with or without his help - at last.

>One more thing, do you think you'd mind having a go at using
>the 'Quote' function in future? It's much easier on the eye.

I'll try. But I'm editing this offline, so it's a bit
tedious. And my method has been good practice in usenet for at
least 15 years.

>I hope my Guenter wrote:
>Refusing to argue about it. In a case where he is involved
>himself and thus biased.
>
>doesn't annoy you too much.

-Guenter.


edit: I just included some quote-marks
one problem is, that the forum deletes leading spaces.
When I edit the posts, it looks more readable than
they are finally displayed here.

[yj_hong]

My 5 cents on the Sudoku copyright discussion here:

First of all the right to the usage of the method/mechanism/facility that
produces the Sudoku sets should be protected, but perhaps not exactly
in the form of "copyright".

And the Sudoku sets that result from the usage of such Sudoku producing method/mechanism/facility, when made accessible, with or without
commercial payment, should NOT be copyrighted. And there are two
reasons for this:

1. The method/mechanism/facility is only there to "uncover" one of
the many Sudoku sets that exist mathematically. It falls into the
category of intellectual assets that can be repetitively produced by
different parties with various methods. There is not that much of
"creation" here, rather it's more of "uncover". The problem here
is, a Sudoku set is only unique until uncovered again. It does not
carry the "uniqueness" as by the "Monalisa's Smile". (This point
has been mentioned many times in various threads)

2. Now if someone still insists on the copyright on Sudoku set just
because he/she is the first one to bring out (uncover) the particular
set, the reality is that the Sudoku set must be published in some form
for gamers' consumption. At the end of the day the solution must be
also made available. How does the original publisher protect
the "copyrighted" Sudoku set being published with different masking
of the numbers (based on the same solution) and published as
a new Sudoku set? How can the publisher get to "copyright" these
off-springs?

*** Need some enlightening here, if I have a Sudoku set solution,
is it possible to produce more than one sets based on the same
solution with different masking, yet still "OBEY" the unique and
symmetrical "RULE" as "REQUIRED" by the Sudoku core people?

If there can be more than one Sudoku sets from the same solution,
do we start to go into the mess of copyright of the game and/or the
solution? ...

In reality people do copy a good Sudoku set and pass it on to friends
for sharing of the challenge. The game publisher needs to find
a way to charge for the access to the given Sudoku game as
published. Once the game is made available to an audience, there
is no more realistic copyright protection whatsoever anymore.
I.e. such copyright claim does not ends in much, if commercial
revenue is what the publisher is aiming for.

Perhaps we need the clarification from the judge himself for the
judgement? And here are the same old two questions again:

1. What is the definition/coverage of the copyright on Sudoku game?
2. How can such copyright be enforced?

Anybody?