@BANNER 1 = Newsletter Exchange
@CREDIT<196>A = by Richard Daggett & Nancy Woolford
@ARTICLE HD 1 = ArcWars
In the past several months we have come across an appalling amount
of verbiage concerning the litigation between SEA and PKARC. Very
few, if any, of the 60 or more User Group newsletters we regularly
read have not had something to say. The more we read the more it became
less clear what the good guy bad guy roles were. The one thing that
is patently obvious is that for many this is mostly a gut issue. We
would suppose that this emotionalism stems from the fact that this
battle is from within the shareware family. Hence it takes on the
aura of any civil war and the resulting internecine conflict.
A very real concern here is that the BBS users are taking it in
the chops by losing (having lost?) a standard in communications. But
incompatibility was to be inevitable as a result of the settlement
between SEA and Phil Katz:
<169>7. Royalties: PK agrees to account monthly and pay to SEA a royalty
fee of 6.5% (six and one half percent) of all revenue received for
ARC compatible programs on all orders received after the effective
date of this Agreement, such revenue including any license fees or
shareware registrations received after January 31, 1989, for ARC compatible
programs.<170> [reprinted in part from a the Greater Victoria PCUG
And this is between the <169>little guys<170> who can't, supposedly,
feed the legal industry. What will be the state of standardization
when the <169>big fellas<170> get through with the <169>look and feel<170>
wars <196> LOFEEWAR for short.
Like it or not you, the user, have been dragged into this morass,
and you are the ones who are going to have to make some significant
What follows are four diverse commentaries and one letter, by
a principle, concerning the Archiving Battle <196> ARCBAT for short.
@SUB TITLE = Share Wars II
@CREDIT = by Tony Barcellos of the Sacramento PC Users Group via the
Palmetto PC User Group
@ARTICLE HD 1 = The Empire Strikes Back
System Enhancement Associates (SEA) slapped PKWare with a contempt
of court charge based on PKWare's continued use of the words <169>archive<170>
and <169>archiving<170> in the documentation of his renamed PKPAK
and PKUNPAK. Apparently, SEA thinks they own the words as well as
the process <196> or believe they have sufficient legal muscle to
shut Phil Katz down completely. This time they blew it.
SEA originally sued Phil Katz of PKWare for infringing on their archiving
program. Part of their claim was that PKARC had the look and feel
of ARC and that Katz had copied ARC code in PKARC and PKXARC programs.
Katz agreed to a settlement relinquishing the right to market his
software after January 1989, to cease using the term ARC and to a
press release stating that SEA and PKWare would not disclose any details
other than those in the joint release. PKWare renamed the products
using <169>PAK<170> to replace <169>ARC.<170>
However, the <169>secret<170> papers were filed as public documents
in Wisconsin and are now making the rounds via bulletin boards and
electronic mail. They contain nothing substantiating pirated code!
SEA's size and legal power that forced the issue <196> not legitimacy
of SEA's claim.
The facts are that both programs drew their compression techniques
from public<196>domain algorithms that anyone is free to implement.
SEA's famous ARC was sluggish and over priced compared to PKWare's
supercharged PKARC and PKXARC, and was rapidly loosing market share.
SEA's continued attacks on PKWare and attempts to lock up all aspects
of archiving has set off a considerable backlash in the PC community.
Electronic petitions are circulating in protest of SEA's legal maneuvering,
SEA products are being scrubbed from bulletin boards and ARC deleted
from software libraries. SEA forgot one thing when trying to acquire
the PC community as its empire. The Empire strikes back!
@SUB TITLE = The New Software
@CREDIT = from the Greater Victoria PCUG, Edited
February has come, and Phil Katz (PKWARE) has brought out his new
archiving utility, ZIP version 0.90. Meanwhile System Enhancement
Associates (SEA) has released ARC version 6.00. Now everyone is running
benchmarks and making comparisons. Definitive pronouncements of the
technical aspects of their relative performance I leave to others,
I will, however, make some general observations.
ZIP is an interesting program produced by a talented programmer. It
operates at a speed equivalent to that of PKARC but the data files
it generates have returned to a central directory format. It was to
escape the restrictions of a central directory that the ARC format
was invented in the first place. Compression was an afterthought,
not being introduced until version 2 of SEA ARC. ZIP does have one
very interesting capability which is not implemented in the present
version, that of creating multi<196>disk ZIP files. If Phil Katz can
successfully implement it, he will have a good product.
For the present, however, the program is in beta release and may contain
bugs as did PKARC versions 3.5 and 3.60. It would not be advisable
to use it on data that really counts, such as hard disk backups and
the like until it is proven.
SEA ARC version 6.0 is more than twice as fast as 5.22 and produces
files in an utterly reliable format. In addition, there are other
utilities such as ZOO, DWC, PAK and whatnot else. Some of these have
capacities which make then viable for particular uses. Much can be
said about all this, but it can wait till later.
@ARTICLE HD 1 = The Lawsuit
The SEA <196> PKWARE lawsuit is the first lawsuit between two purveyors
of Shareware. It has upset a lot of people, largely because it was
so completely unnecessary. That aside, it is a tribute to the many
people who have participated in the production and distribution of
Shareware over the last six years here in North America that this
is the first such lawsuit. In the highly litigatious North American
business environment, that is a notable accomplishment.
The result of the lawsuit, messy as it was, is unequivocal.
Many, many statements have emanated from members of the Katz camp
ever since the inception of this action. They have stirred people
up and caused no end of trouble. I believe that the people issuing
these statements are well<196>intended, but misguided and that the
person responsible for the misguiding is Phil Katz. He has not dealt
honestly with SEA, nor with the user community. In all probability,
he has not dealt honestly with his immediate associates either.
A prominent spokesperson for PK is Karen Little, the lady who writes
its documentation. She is responsible for publishing the Confidential
Cross License Agreement which she found so at variance with her understanding
of the situation, an understanding established on the word of Phil
Katz. A second spokesperson for Phil is Judy Getts, contributing communications
editor to PC World magazine, who has used her editorial platform
to rail against SEA without informing her readers that she is a part
time PKWARE employee. These people and others have swamped the North
American computer networks with messages excoriating SEA.
The situation finally degenerated to the point where last fall when
Thom Henderson of SEA made a statement for the record about the lawsuit.
It is a lengthy statement, designed to answer many of the questions
raised throughout. [See below letter by Thom Henderson : Now that
it's over, what did it mean?. via the Palmetto UG <196> Eds.]
Henderson should not have agreed to terms that the settlement be kept
under court seal. The muzzling of the action and suppression of the
relevant information enabled Phil Katz to circulate a blizzard of
insinuation and innuendo calculated to discredit Thom Henderson and
SEA. The snow has yet to stop falling. It would be too much to shovel
through the drifts and describe all the flakes.
The blizzard hit suddenly and hard, so that only 10 days after the
settlement, SEA was back before the court asking for relief. PK had
released another version of its software, this time called PKPAK,
and SEA argued that its documentation did not conform to the terms
of the settlement. I understand that the court agreed and found PK
in contempt. The point at issue was the use of the tradename <169>ARC<170>.
It is likely that at the time Ms Little wrote the PKPAK documentation
which was the point of contention she was unaware of terms of the
settlement. The contempt action was brought on Aug 11th and by her
own statement, she did not obtain her copy of the Confidential Agreement
until August 31 which she writes <169>came as a complete surprise
to me<170>. One can only conclude that Phil Katz had failed to direct
his employees to act in accordance with the settlement he had just
Through it all, one thing is clear. Phil Katz is a thief. The fact
that he improved upon the software he stole, as he assuredly did,
does not alter the fact. People steal cars all the time and give them
new paint jobs and maybe even soup them up so they go faster, but
they're still hot cars. If you have one, you have received stolen
Katz had his opportunity to explain his position in court, but balked.
He succeeded in suppressing public dissemination of the court proceedings
and then through second and third parties took his case before the
court of public opinion in as tendentious and mendacious a manner
as can be imagined. Throughout he has tried to pass himself off as
a small man being victimized by a large corporate entity. [Again see
below letter by Thom Henderson <196> Eds.]
@ARTICLE HD 1 = The ZIP Dedication
In view of how the whole situation has developed, I doubt that we
have heard the last from Phil Katz. The latest snow shower in in his
release of ZIP. Accompanying the package is the following dedication:
<169>The file format of the files created by these programs, which
file format is original with the first release of this software, is
hereby dedicated to the public domain. Further, the filename extension
of .ZIP, first used inconnection with data compression software on
the first release of this software, is also hereby dedicated to the
public domain, with the fervent and sincere hope that it will not
be attempted to be appropriated by anyone else for their exclusive
use, but rather that it will be used to refer to data compression
and librarying software in general, of a class or type which creates
files having a format generally compatible with this software.<170>
I suspect this dedication was drafted by Mr. Katz himself and not
by a lawyer.
It leaves two matters glaringly open. First, what does Phil mean by
<169>generally compatible<170>? Most especially, what does he intend
to do if someone produces and aggressively markets a program he does
not think generally compatible with his but which generates files
with a .ZIP extension?
Secondly, someone should tell Phil that he does not have the right
to dedicate anything to the public domain. All he can do is renounce
his own rights to it. If he chooses to do that, someone else can come
along and claim them. Me, for instance. This game has already been
played out in the attachment of 'Freeware' by Andrew Fluegleman and
'PC<196>DOS' by DEC. Consequently, we have something called Shareware
and an IBM Corporation which cannot legally market its operating system
under its common semantic designation.
As we have now become aware, the dispute over the tradename ARC between
SEA and PKWARE may be moot. ARC is a registered trademark of DATAPOINT.
It stands for <169>Attached Resource Computer<170> which is a combination
hardware software device used with Datapoint's ARCNET system. Datapoint
has had the rights on the three letter combination since the 1970's,
years before anyone even thought of distributed directory data files.
Phil should stick to doing what he does best, programming computers,
and delegate ancillary matters to more knowledgeable people. In October
of last year, I finished an article on the SEA <196> PKWARE lawsuit
with the sentence: <169>I cannot help thinking that this entire imbroglio
could have been avoided if he [Katz] had extended a few simple courtesies
to deserving parties <196> and utilized the services of a competent
business manager.<170> The statement still stands.
@SUB TITLE = Now That It's Over, What Did It Mean?
@CREDIT = by Thom Henderson, President System Enhancement Associates
via the Palmetto PC User Group
Now that the dust has settled in the first shareware copyright case,
it is time for SEA to make public the facts that many members of the
shareware community deserve to know.
For the record, SEA is a family owned business. Andy Foray, the company
chairman, and Thom Henderson, the company president, are brothers<196>in<196>law.
Irene Henderson, the secretary/treasurer and office manager, is Andy's
sister and Thom's wife.
As the creators, publishers and defenders of the industry standard
ARC file compression format, we have always maintained a strong belief
in a fundamental concept of shareware <196> that shareware be distributed
for free for all non<196>commercial use. To this end, we have never,
and will never, charge for the use of ARC in a non<196>commercial
environment. We also believe that full program sources should be available,
at least to registered users, and we have always made the full ARC
sources available to all users. We have also licensed a great many
people to use the ARC sources in their own programs.
We discovered that PKWARE had obtained our source code without obtaining
a license. He modified that code so that the program ran faster and
provided several other enhancements. However, the nuts and bolts of
the program were done by SEA. That is called piracy, plain and
simple. And this industry has no place for pirates. We tried to politely
ask PKWARE to obtain a license. He ingraciously told us where to go.
We asked our lawyer what we should do. He said we were bound by law
to protect our rights to the trademark and copyrights on ARC. If we
did not, then anyone could use the ARC trademark and copyrights. It
is very much like a candy bar calling itself Hershey. If another company
used the Hershey name without permission, you can imagine what would
Also, it should be noted that PKWARE did not live up to the high standards
set by the shareware industry. He didn't make his source code available.
He sought out our market and competed directly for our corporate market
by using the funds he had received from non<196>commercial users (whom
we would not charge!) He authorized ads with false and misleading
comparison statements to run in the magazines we advertised in. And
he placed those ads on the same pages as our ads. If we did not protect
our investment in the ARC trademark, we would have lost our trademark,
our market and our business. Furthermore, the industry would have
been left in disarray, as two standards would have emerged.
So after Phil Katz told us he would not settle this case like a gentleman,
we were forced to ask the courts to settle it for us. We didn't want
to go to court. We couldn't afford the lawyers fees. We couldn't afford
the time away from programming the updated versions of ARC that will
work on other systems, such as Unix, Macintosh, and VM/CMS. And we
couldn't afford to create a controversy in an industry that we helped
to pioneer. We also couldn't afford to create ill will among users
<196> both our users and PKWARE users. But PKware left us no choice.
Anyway, the case didn't get very far, thanks to the testimony of an
expert witness, John Navas. He looked at the source code of both programs
and found, lo and behold, that the PKWARE program was indeed a blatant
copy of the SEA code. When Katz heard this, he called us directly
<196> bypassing the attorneys <196> and said he wanted to settle.
We were only too happy to put a quick end to this. We wanted the facts
to come out. Unfortunately, Katz demanded that part of the settlement
terms be kept under court seal. We agreed, and we probably should
not have, but we did because we wanted to end the case quickly so
we could get back to updating and improving ARC. Some of the terms
are public: PKWARE cannot distribute the program after January 1,
1989, they cannot substantially change the program (though they can
make bug fixes) and if they receive inquiries for the product, they
must send out SEA literature. Also, PKWARE is prohibited from creating
a new program that is compatible with ARC or PKARC.
If those terms sound one<196>sided, then it only goes to prove the
extent to which PKWARE felt that it had no legitimate right to its
program. After all, why would he give up everything if he was right?
He obviously was not above board in this case, even though the settlement
terms said he was not admitting fault in any way (a standard legalese
We are a bit perturbed that one of PKWARE's part<196>time employees
obtained a copy of the sealed court document, typed it into a file
along with numerous typos and loaded it onto several bulletin board
systems. She also included her own biased, editorial opinion on the
case and its terms. While we don't believe PKWARE had authorized this
action, it obviously violates the sense of fair play that we have
lived with, at Mr. Katz' request. Now we are faced with several problems.
The bulletin board community has heard many comments by people who
did not possess the facts of this case, and therefore made ill informed
opinions. Those opinions seemed like fact because we did not respond
to them while the case was in progress. You are well aware that no
party in a legal action can really speak his mind while the action
is occurring. Because we didn't respond, people assumed that we were
wrong. Well, we weren't wrong and we won't be silent any more. We
have begun responding to the outrageous and outlandish opinions expressed
against SEA. We realize that people came to the only conclusion possible,
given the lack of reliable information about this case.
We will respond to any and every comment about this case.We welcome
questions and urge people to call us at our office. When the dust
settles, no one will doubt our sincerity in trying to do the right
We'd also like to clear up a few basic misconceptions that have appeared
on the boards:
@BULLET = SEA waited too long to take action.
Response: The legal world moves slowly. First we have to be aware
of the situation, determine that a violation of our copyright existed,
try to settle amicably and then take legal action. That takes time.
@BULLET = SEA doesn't upgrade it's program.
Response: We have updated the program nine times in three years. We
have made it available for several other operating systems, such as
OS/2 and CP/M. We will continue to upgrade the program to benefit
all users on all systems.
@BULLET = SEA used the courts when it realized it couldn't compete
on raw programming talent.
Response: We have a very good program and one that is getting better.
We wouldn't be the defenders of an industry standard if we didn't
have programming talent to begin with.
@BULLET = SEA is a Goliath pursuing a David called Phil Katz.
Response: Phil Katz is a not just a person. He is a company, and a
big one at that. PKWARE is a bigger company than SEA, despite the
fact we publish four programs. We calculate that PKware currently
grosses almost $2,000 a day, or about five times what we do. We challenge
him to make his audited figures public.
@BULLET = PKWARE must be a small company because we hear there are
only three employees including his mother.
Response: We applaud Mrs. Katz and wish her the best of success. We
too are a family run company. Andy Foray and Thom Henderson are brothers<196>in<196>law
and Irene Henderson serves as secretary/treasurer. We have hired a
programmer and a license manager. We didn't do this because we had
a windfall profit, we did this because we needed to stay competitive
and to serve new markets.
@BULLET = SEA should have pursued the case to a jury trial so a precedent
could be set for the industry.
Response: We wish we had the money to support our lawyer to take this
case to a jury trial conclusion. However, we were eating hot dogs
every night and had to take on outside consulting jobs to make ends
meet. We needed to end this case before the legal fees devoured our
company. Besides, we weren't out to crucify the guy <196> we just
wanted him to stop stealing our work.
If there are more questions, be assured, we will respond to them.
We have also issued a new policy statement regarding the licensing
of ARC. It has been uploaded to the IBMSW forum on CompuServe, the
utilities/archivers conference on BIX, and has been disseminated to
other BBSs as well. The terms probably are the most liberal for any
licensing policy for any software company. And if that isn't enough,
give us a call and we'll see what we can work out. We welcome the
opportunity to better serve the shareware community. We invite your
comments and your suggestions.
@SUB TITLE = Archiving
@CREDIT = by Dex Hart of the Miami PC Users Group, Edited
I wrote on archiving utilities in both July and August 1988 and here
we go again. Really, it's not that I'm fixated on archiving, it's
just that there are some big changes happening you should know about.
Recall that <169>archiving<170> means to clump multiple files into
one, while also condensing the total combined size to 1/2 or 2/3 of
the original size; convenient for downloading multiple<196>file programs,
while also minimizing download time. Archived files are identified
by the .ARC extension (long, long ago, an older format used the extension
.LBR, for library).
ARC files were introduced by SEA (Systems Enhancement Associates),
but a guy named Phil Katz improved and speeded up archiving utilities
to the point where his PKARC and PKXARC were the dominant archiving
programs in use. It seems SEA had a patent, however, and sued. Katz
quit using the term <169>arc,<170> and called his newer versions PKPAK
and PKUNPAK <196> but they were still compatible with older ARC files.
If I've got the story right, it seems SEA wasn't too happy with the
new versions either, but wanted Katz to quit offering programs compatible
with ARC files. Katz signed up to this restriction.
Thus was born ZIP. We now have PKZIP and PKUNZIP to archive (I can't
think of a better word) and unarchive files. But they won't work on
ARC files. You might say, who needs this? Just keep using the old
PKARC versions, right? Absolutely. There's only one fly in that ointment
<196> all the bulletin boards are converting to ZIP files, often overnight.
It seems that most of the SysOps like Katz (a lot). And are not overfond
of SEA. All together now, you SysOps ... aim in the direction of SEA
and place thumb to nose, ZIP it is.
Utilities have appeared overnight (wonder who wrote them?) that convert
all ARC files to ZIP files. No, ARC and ZIP aren't compatible, but
for such an easy conversion the changes can't be great. I suspect
the differences are mostly in the file header, but it doesn't matter.
Like it or not, we now have to contend with both types of archiving.
For your personal use, continue to use ARC. Phil Katz' latest self<196>splitting
file will be on our BBS [Note: This is Miami speaking <196> Ed.]
Filename: PKX35A35.EXE (last ARC version) or PK36.EXE (PAK version,
compatible with ARC). Phil Katz' new ZIP self<196>splitter (latest
version as it is written): PKZ090.EXE.
The host of auxiliary programs which formed front<196>ends to Katz'
programs have been or probably will be rewritten to accommodate ZIP.
Arc Master has already responded; SHARC and others probably will follow.
Neat freestanding programs like NARC will probably accommodate both
file types (unless the author of NARC gets sued). Overall, this is
just a minor irritation we have to get used to. We didn't need it,
but there's no escaping the fact we now have two primary types of
archived files. At the rate ZIP is taking over, however, there soon
may be only one type. If that turns out to be the case, then court
decisions notwithstanding, SEA lost and Phil Katz won. And users add
another small increase in complexity to their lives.
Interesting stuff, but a tip: Keep your PK ARC type programs and get
your hands on a copy of the PK ZIP programs. You'll need both (at
least for a while) <196> and most of us probably won't ever need anything
beyond these two programs.
@SUB TITLE = No PKARCing at UCLA
@CREDIT = by Peter Chow, President, UCLA User Group
The SEA<196>PKWare Saga or the battle of ARChive
A little more than four years ago, there was a utility that performed
file compression for the purpose of archiving a large body of information.
Bulletin Board Systems across the country embraced this utility with
great enthusiasm and, soon afterward, it became the de facto
standard. The company, because of marketing reasons, made the source
code for the product available to the public with a notice allowing
others to use it with only prior notification to the company. (The
relevant algorithms had been placed previously in the public domain
by their respective authors.) Grass<196>root support for this product
widened. Users were comfortable with its usage. Many commercial companies
licensed it for distribution purposes. The utility to which I am referring
is, of course, ARC, produced by Systems Enhancement Associate (SEA).
In its infancy, it was a product with many problems, so that fixes
and enhancements were made to it frequently. In 1986, another company
PKWare, produced a competing product: PKARC/PKXARC. It was a significant
improvement over ARC (from SEA) in many ways. In mid<196>1988, SEA
initiated legal actions against PKWare citing the <169>look and feel<170>
issue and copyright infringement. What ever his reasons were Phil
Katz, the author and principal of PKWARE, opted for an out<196>of<196>court
settlement and agreed to stop distribution and development of PKARC
in January 1989. This has led to the creation of five different compression
program formats on the market at this time, none of which is compatible
with any of the others. In other words, the direct effect of the SEA
action has been that the de facto standard no longer exists.
Because of my feelings toward <169>look and feel<170> lawsuits, as
well as other specifics concerning the litigation, the East and West
UCLA PC UG BBSs will no longer support the SEA ARC format. By mid<196>March
(or sooner), all ARC files on both BBSs will be converted to Phil
Katz's new format: PKZIP/PKUNZIP. This format is not, repeat
not, compatible with PKARC/PKXARC. BBS users must, therefore,
do the following: first, download PKZ090.EXE to unarchive any ZIPped
files (when you type PKZ090.EXE, the file will <169>unzip<170> itself);
second, be sure to keep a backup copy of PKARC/PKXARC available
in the event you need to unarchive a previously ARCed file.