do you own the rights legally? - page 3
You are missing trading opportunities:
- Free trading apps
- Over 8,000 signals for copying
- Economic news for exploring financial markets
Registration
Log in
You agree to website policy and terms of use
If you do not have an account, please register
Even plants and rocks and different bacteria and genes are patented, and yet none of these are invented or unique,
they are - e.g. genetically-modificated objects... and the main idea is the technology of creation that can guarantee the "purity" of the product... that is being guaranteed to the buyer by the license he is getting with a patented product he purchases from seller
This also includes posting your code to the mql cloud for encrypting, because your file has to be recieved by another computer to be encrypted, therefore you are not in personal posession of it anymore, therefore it is in public domain and/or public knowledge.
That which you speak of is more than likely the backup file and not the source code. Double encrypting it or some such is only a general precaution against others duplicating your work and slowing down competition. Still to debate is whether or not any code for this compiler is actually protected under copyright and if rather instead only the name may indeed be copyright protected.
Therefore once you sent your backup file to Metaquotes for added security and it was decompiled to source to encrypt the process more than likely was covered in copyright by them owning the programming language compiler.
but why do you " feel it was important for us to find what made an expert or indicator protected by copyright ". I have read from various sellers that they have a patent, but they never show any sort of proofof any sort. .. Why would you not show your copyright or patent proof, if you had either of them?
yes - "why" - is the reasonable point here... I also don't care about it... if I need - I buy for acceptable price, if not - then not... doesn't depend on any papers, just the product matters & conditions for purchase if they exist...
However,
copyright can be proved only in the law-court - if you have evidences - some developing files with certain timestamp, that you invented this product earlier than anybody - and thus you should be considered to be the author!.. otherwise you can just either believe or not who is the real author... but to prove your authority in the law-court also costs some money
and patent really is a document ... proving not uniqueness of the product but your exclusive rights to produce your product for sale -- I'm used to be aware of such a view
Therefore once you sent your backup file to Metaquotes for added security and it was decompiled to source to encrypt the process more than likely was covered in copyright by them owning the programming language compiler.
you're again mixing 2 things - either logics of your code, or compiler's work to modify your code into the machine-code...
BTW, you can provide .ex4/5 file ( already compiled) & no source-code (.mql4/5) - thus having protected your code even without C++/C# dll compiled (but compiled with MetaLang compiler - to .ex4/5 file)... and decompiling is not so easy as you think - no any decompiler will provide the initial code as it was before compilation!...
p.s.
)) Market Product rating calculation now includes description quality - just provide proper description for your product to be competitive in the market
you're again mixing 2 things - either logics of your code, or compiler work to modify your code into the machine-code...
BTW, you can provide .ex4/5 file ( already compiled) & no source-code (.mql4/5)... and decompiling is not so easy as you think - no any decompiler will provide the initial code as it was before compilation!...
Actually, I am saying there is no reason why Metaquotes cannot decompile codes it was sent to re-compile. You are referring to backwards engineering like take for example a programming language is going to be more difficult to reverse engineer in C++ than C# but there is no way that it could ever be decompiled, as machine code.
there is no way that it could ever be decompiled.
the same I've said... -- the same in MQL you have MetaLang.exe compiler - compiling source-files to .ex4/5
copyright can be proved only in the law-court - if you have evidences - some developing files with certain timestamp, that you invented this product earlier than anybody - and thus you should be considered to be the author!.. otherwise you can just either believe or not who is the real author... but to prove your authority in the law-court also costs some money
the topic of whether or not anyone developing experts and/or indicators have any legal rights over their code outside of civil legality.
from here I'm out of topic - you'd better defend your civil legality in the appropriate place... here it is just a bla-bla-bla... nobody here (neither you nor any your responder) has the authority to help you with your "civil legality" -- just waste of time to continue this topic, the main have already been told, empty discussion is being started now by you...
let your code to have real practical value & just do your job to earn with your EA
p.s. BTW usually people starts to talk about "to own the rights legally" & finish with "civil rights" with postfix "legality"... until they once find out that you can not be the owner of non-material things, but you can only be the bearer of them & can only realize these non-material abstractions... and the way you do it - is not a concern of legality, but a concern of decency... and not the right, but the responsibility
I remember producing a moving average expert which worked really well back in 2008. I had printed it out and punched holes as to put everything into a binder which I carried with me in my vehicle everywhere I went to show to prospective buyers looking to invest in the forex. It's funny because at the time it was a really good working EA with years of backtesting both credible and real but only a few months later the market changed dramatically. After all those years it finally crashed and the market was never stable again to use such a strategy. I am not talking about that binder of pages of code being protected from theft but rather, whether or not copyright protection was allowed for such a work.
It wouldn't had mattered to me then nor do I feel the need for such an application now for it being dependent on the broker terminal software.
they are - e.g. genetically-modificated objects... and the main idea is the technology of creation that can guarantee the "purity" of the product... that is being guaranteed to the buyer by the license he is getting with a patented product he purchases from seller
nah. In the US you can put a patent on a tree fern that no one has documented yet, even tho that fern is not created or geneticly modified by anyone. but we digress :)
> p.s. BTW usually people starts to talk about "to own the rights legally" & finish with "civil rights" with postfix "legality"... until they once find out that you can not be the owner of non-material things, but you can only be the bearer of them & can only realize these non-material abstractions... and the way you do it > - is not a concern of legality, but a concern of decency... and not the right, but the responsibilit
agreed completely. the ops question was quite specific but then he changed the discussion a few times to other topics that have already been discussed "to death" in this forum. This is my last post and probably the last time i will even check this for later comments. bye now. If the op wants to get more discussion and conjecture on this or any other topic, then i suggest that he/she go onto facebook, where other gossipers reside and post all day long and they love doing it. But here we usually only comment on specific questions that require even more specific answers. bye now.