Hi, Josh. I'm the Manager of Software Engineering at Pocket Soft, makers of RTPatch. I'd like to address a misquote contained in your June 28th post and hopefully clear the air and explain Pocket Soft's official position with respect to open source, patents and head-to-head comparison with XDelta. I'm happy for you to use all or part of my email within your site, if you feel it is appropriate.



First of all, the quote "xdelta likely infringes on our patents as well" is inaccurate (nobody from Pocket Soft made that specific remark to anyone at anytime); however, it does embody the essence of a statement made by one of our salesmen to a company in Australia that could have been *construed* to suggest a patent infringement claim. This was a one-time incident, and was not representative of Pocket Soft's corporate position. In fact, our CEO spoke to the CEO of the Australian outfit who received this message and explained that it was the result of an overzealous salesman. We have also addressed this issue internally with all staff.



In fact, Pocket Soft is a supporter of open source software, and understand that it serves a great purpose in our industry. Further, having spent the last 15+ years on the specific problems associated with byte-level differencing, we have a great appreciation for the work that you have done on XDelta. The purpose of patents for Pocket Soft's use are in fact defensive and to serve as a sales "check list" for our Enterprise customers. Consider the following [article].



In particular, the section of "Legal Risk" comes into play frequently with the OEM and even shrink-wrap sales we make to Enterprise. When you are selling to the Oracles of the world, we are almost always asked "what about indemnity?". The existence of a patent on the core technology helps to alleviate fears of legal risk - regardless of your, or even our own, opinions on software patents themselves.



Regarding head-to-head comparison, we are well aware of specific places where we could improve speed or patch file size in RTPatch to gain a few points here and there; however, the needs of our customers regarding reliability trump that. Your reader wrote that they had a 4.5 year old version of RTPatch. Some of our users cling to 12 year old versions fearing the possibility of destabilization with a new release. Our Enterprise customers like to hear that we can claim with absolute sincerity that the current patch file format, Build engine, etc., have been thoroughly tested and that the same algorithms are being used for the million+ patches applied every single day by users of RTPatch (McAfee and Trend Micro alone put out that many patches). When the US Navy began using RTPatch for their digitized nautical charts used by ships at sea, they cared less about gaining a few more points on size reduction or even speed of Build. They needed

reliability and robustness.



This is not to say that your product lacks these characteristics. I am speaking only to the issues that we are faced with daily by our customers and potential customers. We also have to deal with the extended feature-set of RTPatch, including support for Windows Installer, automatic patch delivery mechanisms, as well as a host of Windows-specific features and options (self-registering files, registry support, etc.). The core algorithm is, of course, important, but in our market, there is much more than just byte-level differencing at play.



Finally, on a personal note, I wanted to say that we're not a big, bad corporation out to squash or bully innovators of open source software. On the contrary, we appreciate the attention you draw to yourself, which in turns brings companies who are in our market, to the attention of RTPatch. I understand that you work at Google now, so I'm sure that you know that not *all* companies are evil. :)



I hope you took the time to read this far. I certainly appreciate the opportunity to clear the air. Feel free to call or email anytime, and I'd be happy to chat.



Best of luck to you,



Tony O-

Manager, Software Engineering

Pocket Soft, Inc.

713-460-5600

In the event [Company] discovers that Licensor is not the legal owner and title holder of any code sequence within Xdelta delivered under this Agreement, [Company] shall notify Licensor of such discovery in writing, including the specific software code sequence in question, and shall give Licensor One Hundred Eighty (180) days to replace same with a functionally equivalent code sequence that Licensor is the legal owner and title holder of, all prior to invoking any form of relief which may be permitted under this Agreement. (contact me for a sample license)

hi, i'm using your AMAZING(!) xdelta 1.1.3 and is fantastic...i use it for make the patches for my translations and stuff like these...i was wondering...is it possible to implement a feature that expand the process to all the subdirectories? using a for like this for %%i in (*.*) do xdelta delta "OLD\%%i" "NEW\%%i" "%%i.patch" it doesn't recreate the dir tree and it doesn't take the subdirectories...what do you think about that?

We are using xdelta3 to compress our backups down at my workplace and it is working excellently, however whichever machine it is run on is put out of commission for the duration due to the xdelta3 executable window popping up for each file. Would it be possible to build the xdelta3 program as a DLL, much like zlib is? I have absolutely no knowledge of C/C++ so I don't know if this is a huge ask or not :)

I'm happy about an e-mail from a manager at Pocket Soft, clarifying what was written in my previous post. Obviously, Pocket Soft deserves recognition here because, commercially speaking, they're the only basis for comparison sent by users. I am posting the entire content here.I've received a steady stream of e-mail regarding Xdelta ever since version 0.13 was released (Oct 12 1997) and this is one of the nicest ones ever. Thanks.Re: Patents and the Oracles of the worldThe threat model is: I will sell a software license excluding you from the (copyright-related) terms of the GPL, giving you unlimited use for a flat fee, but it's done without representations, warranties, liabilities, indemnities, etc. The argument is, your company could be sued over intellectual property rights if any of the following technologies and programs should fall to a claim (although they have never to my knowledge been in doubt): Zlib-1.x, Xdelta-1.x, and the draft-standard RFC 3284 (VCDIFF).I will say this:But, patents aren't the real issue to me, in this post or the last, it's about support and features. This really is more than "just byte-level differencing at play".Re: SupportIn the unlikely event that you find an Xdelta crash or incorrect result, I'm really interested in fixing it. I keep track of issues . I respond to e-mail, like this one about directory-diff support:Here's a user-submitted perl script for recursive directory diff. (To which the sender replied, "I don't know barely nothing about perl," making two of us.) If you have your own engineers, if Xdelta passes your tests, you probably don't need support. If you're McAfee or the US Navy, you need support. Here's someone who needs support:I'd rather work on my car project than self-registering files, thank you very much. =)