HDTenEightyP/NetNews huggingface dataset:
From: bhayden@teal.csn.org (Bruce Hayden)
Subject: Re: Question about using others data in my program
Organization: Colorado SuperNet, Inc.
Date: Thu, 28 Jan 1993 14:22:42 GMT

aa701@Freenet.carleton.ca (Michael Beaupre) writes:


>Can anybody out there help me?  I'm writing a computer program that I
>eventually plan to sell to businesses.  As part of this computer program,
>I'd like to provide users with specifications on the products of
>certain businesses.

>These product specifications are availabe to the general public for the
>asking.  I received these product specifications by calling the companys
>and requesting it. 

>Do I need to get written permission from these companys before putting their
>product specifications into my program?

The only realistic claim of any such business is through Copyright law.
Trade secret law doesn't work because the information is not secret.
Trademark/Lanham Act is probably not applicable if you clearly identify
which company has which specifications (but see your attorney on this -
it is potentially a problem).

I think that you would find that such information (in itself) is not
protectable under copyright law. The organization (or experssion) is.
But - hopefully you are imposing your own organization.

This is not legal advice - consult with an Intellectual Property
on this subject before making any decisions.

Bruce E. Hayden
(303) 758-8400
bhayden@csn.org

Newsgroups: misc.legal.computing
From: law40003@nusunix1.nus.sg (TAN YEW KEONG)
Subject: Legal Discussion
Organization: National University of Singapore
X-Newsreader: TIN [version 1.1 PL6]
Date: Mon, 25 Jan 1993 16:46:59 GMT



Please ignore ALL my previous postings on the subject.

I am a final year law student planning to specialise in law regarding
all aspects of computing. I am computer literate and will be able to
understand most computer jargon except highly technical subjects like
Huffman coding etc.

It would be interesting for me to get to know real world legal problems 
regarding computers. If you have any legal problems or experiences,
post to me, and I will be glad to discuss them with you. The experience will
prove invaluable to me.

Disclaimers :

I will not be liable for any prosecution, both civil and criminal,
arising in any way connected to our discussion, whether it may be
your reliance on our discussion, or our discussion leading to criminal 
behaviour.

Nobody should regard our discussions as final and conclusive, and I do not
profess any expert knowledge whatsoever.

I disclaim responsibility for any losses you incur by relying on our 
discussions, and if any of our discussions lead to criminal behaviour,
let it be known that I have no knowledge of collaboration with any
criminal.

I wonder if this disclaimer works, but it sure sounds legal. But I mean
all this mumbo jumbo, and if my drafting skills leave much to be
desired, read it in spirit, not in form.
--

_________________________________________________________________________
Michael Tan Yew Keong | law40003@nusunix1.nus.sg | law40003@nusvm.nus.sg|
Final Year Law student - OH GOD, IT'S BEEN A HELLUVA LONG TIME!!!       |
________________________________________________________________________|
--

_________________________________________________________________________
Michael Tan Yew Keong | law40003@nusunix1.nus.sg | law40003@nusvm.nus.sg|
Final Year Law student - OH GOD, IT'S BEEN A HELLUVA LONG TIME!!!       |
________________________________________________________________________|
From: coyne@csc.liv.ac.uk (J.A. Coyne)
Newsgroups: misc.legal.computing
Subject: Legal issues for Software Reuse
Date: 27 Jan 93 16:44:28 GMT
Organization: Computer Science, Liverpool University

What is the legal position as reguards software reuse. I know a number of U.S. 
departments actively encourage the production of reusable software. If this
results in a library of reusable generic components are these component covered
by copyright when modified to transfer the technology to another domain. Likewise is public domain software like the ANDREW TOOLKIT covered by copyright
when the function calls are included within a client program produced by another party.


Thanks.
Newsgroups: misc.legal.computing,misc.legal
From: bhayden@teal.csn.org (Bruce Hayden)
Subject: Re: Out of print material and copyright law
Organization: Colorado SuperNet, Inc.
Date: Thu, 21 Jan 1993 05:38:17 GMT

leonard@qiclab.scn.rain.com (Leonard Erickson) writes:

>sbarber@panix.com (Steve Barber) writes:

>You missed my point *completely*. The original 6502 program *is* copy-
>righted. No argument there. But what I'm saying is that a port of it 
>to another architecture would be "derivative work" only to the extent
>that "West Side Story" is derived from "Romeo and Juliet". 

Well, first of all, West Side Story is not a good model, since
Romeo and Juliet would have gone into the public domain hundreds
of years ago, if they had had copyright back then.

But more fundamentally, you have to look at the level of abstraction
you need to go to for the "copying" before you can determine whether
or not it is a derivitive work. West Side Story is a very high level
of abstraction. Translating the algorigthms of one program would be
much lower. Unfortunately, the courts haven't been able to draw a
bright line to determine the proper level of abstration.

>The *only* way you are going to make that work is if you buy into the
>"look and feel" argument.  

Only if 1) you haven't copied the arrangement of the algorithms 
of the original, and 2) if the work was registered as 
a literary work, and not an audio-visual work. 

However, I could also argue even if the work is pre-Berne, it is still
protected as such an audio-visual work, regardless of registration,
since under the 1976 Act, protection is by operation of law (automatic)
It is just that prior to Berne one could lose protection by failure
to mark.

>What I was saying is that *no* part of the Aplle II "expression" is *usable*
>on another machine. Only the *idea*, and the *idea* is not copyrightable!

What do you mean by the "idea"? Agreed, a program that does the same
essential thing doesn't by that alone infringe. (The one idea problem
of Whalen). But - is youridea" more specific. If so, I don't think
the law is as clear as you indicate.

>What winds up being kept would be along the lines of the similarity
>between "space Invaders" and the hundreds of knock-offs that were
>done for game machines and home computers. The *code* is not at all
>similar until you get to the algorithmic level. And at *that* level,
>it is *not* the program but a *description* of the program. Thus my
>"plot line" analogy. 

Again, what do you mean by algorithmic level? Sure, a single simple
algorithm is not protected. But - the combination of what algorithms
actually used, and in what order, etc. very well could be protected.

Bruce E. Hayden
(303) 758-8400
bhayden@csn.org

Newsgroups: misc.legal.computing,misc.legal
From: law40003@nusunix1.nus.sg (TAN YEW KEONG)
Subject: Legal Advice
Organization: National University of Singapore
X-Newsreader: TIN [version 1.1 PL6]
Date: Mon, 25 Jan 1993 09:55:27 GMT



I am a final year law student planning to specialise in law regarding
all aspects of computing. I am computer literate and will be able to
understand most computer jargon except highly technical subjects like
Huffman coding etc.

If you have any legal problems or queries, post to me, and I will
endeavour to give free advice as far as possible.

It will be good practice for me, and free legal advice for you.

Disclaimer :

I will not be liable for any prosecution, both civil and criminal,
arising in any way connected to my giving the advice, whether it may be
your reliance on my advice, or my advice leading to criminal behaviour.
No one should interpret my advice as conclusive, and my advice is given
in the same manner as suggestions, and I do not profess any expert
knowledge on the advice I give. I disclaim responsibility for any losses
you incur by relying on my advice, and if any advice I give is illegal,
let it be known that I have no knowledge of collaboration with any
criminal.

I wonder if this disclaimer works, but it sure sounds legal. But I mean
all this mumbo jumbo, and if my drafting skills leave much to be
desired, read it in spirit, not in form.
--

_________________________________________________________________________
Michael Tan Yew Keong | law40003@nusunix1.nus.sg | law40003@nusvm.nus.sg|
Final Year Law student - OH GOD, IT'S BEEN A HELLUVA LONG TIME!!!       |
________________________________________________________________________|
--

_________________________________________________________________________
Michael Tan Yew Keong | law40003@nusunix1.nus.sg | law40003@nusvm.nus.sg|
Final Year Law student - OH GOD, IT'S BEEN A HELLUVA LONG TIME!!!       |
________________________________________________________________________|
From: djb@silverton.berkeley.edu (D. J. Bernstein)
Newsgroups: misc.legal.computing
Subject: Re: Not illegal to import PGP into U.S.!
Date: 24 Jan 93 00:27:14 GMT
Organization: IR
X-Mail-Warning: Do not reply by mail---silverton not configured yet.

In article <1993Jan23.195047.10862@netcom.com> strnlght@netcom.com (David Sternlight) writes:
> Since the Treasury has not authorized its import, "(c)" does not
> apply.

Sternlight, the Treasury Department deals with things like embargoes.
The exports and imports it does *not* authorize in the law are
phenomenally few and far between. I won't be able to check the
regulations until Monday but I'm quite willing to bet that Treasury
*does* authorize the permanent import of PGP from Europe.

  [ scare tactics: ``the feds will take your equipment, etc.'' ]

There's no reason for anyone on the net to listen to such hogwash.
If Joe Shmoe wants to see whether ``the feds'' will get angry at his
use of PGP, he can simply call up the Treasury Department and ask
(1) what they think and (2) whether they have jurisdiction here.

---Dan
Newsgroups: misc.legal.computing
From: sudeep@cs.cornell.edu (Sudeep Gupta)
Subject: Copyright articles and Anonymous ftp
Keywords: copyrights, ftp
Organization: Cornell University, CS Dept., Ithaca, NY
Date: Tue, 26 Jan 1993 22:31:06 GMT


Hi!

I have the following problem. Suppose I publish a paper at a technical
conference. Typically, the publisher owns the copyright but the author is allowed
to privately distribute some copies. Further, the author is allowed to publish
a similar paper as a technical report.

I am trying to determine what the author can make available by anonymous
ftp? i.e., can the author make a ps/dvi/tex file of the conference paper
available by anonymous ftp? A ps/dvi/tex file of a similar technical report?

Any help would be most appeciated.

Thanks

-Sudeep
Newsgroups: misc.legal.computing
From: aa701@Freenet.carleton.ca (Michael Beaupre)
Subject: Question about using others data in my program
Reply-To: aa701@Freenet.carleton.ca (Michael Beaupre)
Organization: The National Capital Freenet
Date: Wed, 27 Jan 1993 20:26:00 GMT


Can anybody out there help me?  I'm writing a computer program that I
eventually plan to sell to businesses.  As part of this computer program,
I'd like to provide users with specifications on the products of
certain businesses.

These product specifications are availabe to the general public for the
asking.  I received these product specifications by calling the companys
and requesting it. 

Do I need to get written permission from these companys before putting their
product specifications into my program?

Thanks!
-- 
Michael Beaupre, P.E.............................Professional Custom Software
aa701@Freenet.carleton.ca........................(613) 744-7234

"Everything should be as simple as possible, but not simpler." -- Einstein
From: strnlght@netcom.com (David Sternlight)
Newsgroups: misc.legal.computing
Subject: Re: Not illegal to import PGP into U.S.!
Date: 23 Jan 93 19:50:47 GMT
Organization: Netcom - Online Communication Services (408 241-9760 guest)

In article <4655.Jan2305.28.2793@silverton.berkeley.edu> djb@silverton.berkeley.edu (D. J. Bernstein) writes:
>In article <1993Jan23.030558.4357@netcom.com>,
>in a silly attempt to show that ITAR prevents the import of PGP into the U.S.,
>strnlght@netcom.com (David Sternlight) writes:

The use of "silly attempt" is rude and uncalled for in response to a factual
message. It shows how flame wars start here.

>> 123.2 Imports.
>> No defense article may be imported into the United States unless (a)
>> it was previously exported temporarily under a license issued by the
>> Office of Munitions Control; or (b) it constitutes a temporary
>> import/intransit shipment licensed under Section 123.3; or (c) its
>> import is authorized by the Department of the Treasury (see 27 CFR
>> parts 47, 178, and 179).
>

Since PGP2.0 is based on an export of PGP1.0 without a license, "(a)" does
not apply. Since it is not licensed under Section 123.3, "(b)" does not
apply. Since the Treasury has not authorized its import, "(c)" does not
apply.


>Yes, Sternlight. Why don't you read the law you're quoting?

This kind of language speaks for itself.

Read "The Hacker Crackdown". The Feds move slowly, but when they get
exercised, seizure of equipment and jail time can result. Even if one is
vindicated in the end, one has still spent time in jail and lost one's
equipment, and the equipment can be kept for long periods of time even if
one is not charged. I don't say it's right or wrong , but that it's so. If
they get as exercised about what they think to be crypto law violations as
they've gotten about some other matters, and decide it's a form of computer
crime, similar consequences could result, and for what?

Bernstein may be willing to take such risks based on his confidence in his
"legal" abilities or some civil liberties position, but I am not. Other
readers may decide for themselves.

To avoid yet another interminable thread, I stand on the language of the law
and this message. If one thinks he has found contrary language somewhere and
is willing to risk the consequences based on that interpretation, that's his
business, but readers should be aware of the risks in this area.

David
-- 
David Sternlight
RIPEM Public Key on server  --  Consider it an envelope for your e-mail
From: kelly@netcom.com (Kelly Goen)
Newsgroups: misc.legal.computing
Subject: Re: Not illegal to import PGP into U.S.!
Date: 27 Jan 93 18:22:04 GMT
Organization: Netcom Online Communications Services (408-241-9760 login: guest)




And it should be remembered that David Sternlight is not an attorney,
has not been admitted to the BAR, and as such his layman's
legal opinions are worth exactly what they offer, nothing.
(and since I am in Davids Kill file he supposedly wont see this)
I am sorry to waste the bandwidth again, and this subject
has gone on ad nauseam can we get on to more technical issues?"

       cheers
       kelly
From: wlaite@carina.unm.edu (Winter Laite LAW)
Newsgroups: misc.legal.computing
Subject: Software for law: teaching, presentation, authoring?
Date: 28 Jan 1993 15:44:23 GMT
Organization: University of New Mexico, Albuquerque
NNTP-Posting-Host: carina.unm.edu

My professor of Clinical Law would like to know what
teaching software is available for VMS, UNIX, and
PC. Any and all responses appreciated. Companies, please
send descriptions of your software, how we can reach you,
etc. Please send info on LAW-RELATED packages only, except
for authoring software.

Thanks in advance,
Winter Laite
wlaite@carina.unm.edu
laitew@libra.unm.edu
From: wlaite@carina.unm.edu (Winter Laite LAW)
Newsgroups: misc.legal.computing
Subject: WARNING! Blond's Multistate Questions
Date: 28 Jan 93 00:09:16 GMT
Organization: University of New Mexico, Albuquerque
NNTP-Posting-Host: carina.unm.edu

Warning to those purchasing Blond's Multistate Products.

I ordered 5-1/4 diskettes of this bar preparation course,
and received 3-1/2 diskettes. I copied them onto disks
my computer can use, and tried to install the program.

I got a "security error". Apparently some undocumented
protection program is loose. Also, I asked for blue
label shipping and was charged SEVENTEEN DOLLARS for
a 10 or 11 ounce package.

I am going to try to get my money back from this company.
If you have had a rotten experience with these "people",
please e-mail me at the address below.

According to the manual, you can not reinstall the software,
even if you own it and it's the only copy! What the helll
kind of crap is that? What if your hard drive crashes? What
if you buy a new drive?

It's bad enough to pay outrageous prices for casebooks that
are 90% non-copyrightable material - now this shit!

BAH. Humbug.

Winter Laite
wlaite@carina.unm.edu

                                        
Newsgroups: misc.legal.computing
From: bhayden@teal.csn.org (Bruce Hayden)
Subject: Re: WARNING! Blond's Multistate Questions
Organization: Colorado SuperNet, Inc.
Date: Thu, 28 Jan 1993 14:30:16 GMT

wlaite@carina.unm.edu (Winter Laite LAW) writes:

>Warning to those purchasing Blond's Multistate Products.

>I ordered 5-1/4 diskettes of this bar preparation course,
>and received 3-1/2 diskettes. I copied them onto disks
>my computer can use, and tried to install the program.

>I got a "security error". Apparently some undocumented
>protection program is loose. Also, I asked for blue
>label shipping and was charged SEVENTEEN DOLLARS for
>a 10 or 11 ounce package.

>I am going to try to get my money back from this company.
>If you have had a rotten experience with these "people",
>please e-mail me at the address below.

>According to the manual, you can not reinstall the software,
>even if you own it and it's the only copy! What the helll
>kind of crap is that? What if your hard drive crashes? What
>if you buy a new drive?

>It's bad enough to pay outrageous prices for casebooks that
>are 90% non-copyrightable material - now this shit!

I think that this is symptomatic of the legal profession -
companies selling Bar review stuff to aspiring lawyers must
be especially diligent - especially given that if an applicatn
were actually caught and convicted of copyright infringement,
his bar admission would be much more problematical.

But having sat through several Bar reviews (and then passed the
corresponding Bar exams), I do not think that the company is
overreacting. 

As an aside, I bought Blond's paperback tests, and was happy.
Taking BARBRI, PMBR, then taking a number of practice tests
(including Blond's) allowed me to pass the Colorado Bar
on my mutlistate results alone with ease (I was about 20
points over the minimum).

Bruce E. Hayden
(303) 758-8400
bhayden@csn.org

>                                        
Newsgroups: misc.legal.computing
From: bhayden@teal.csn.org (Bruce Hayden)
Subject: Re: Legal issues for Software Reuse
Organization: Colorado SuperNet, Inc.
Date: Thu, 28 Jan 1993 14:08:47 GMT

coyne@csc.liv.ac.uk (J.A. Coyne) writes:

>What is the legal position as reguards software reuse. I know a number of U.S. 
>departments actively encourage the production of reusable software. If this
>results in a library of reusable generic components are these component covered
>by copyright when modified to transfer the technology to another domain. Likewise is public domain software like the ANDREW TOOLKIT covered by copyright
>when the function calls are included within a client program produced by another party.

Copying is copying. In the United States, since we joined Berne, 
copyright protection is automatic - it is by operation of law.
You don't have to do anything to get copyright protection.
(but you do have to register before you can sue).

This means that any software written, unless written by Federal Govt employees
is automatically protected by copyright.

Once we have determined that C/R law applies, we have to ask whether you
can use it. If the author placed the software in a library of resuable 
software, I would argue that he agreed to a non-exclusive license thereof.
Non-exclusive licenses don't have to be in writing, nor do they have to
be recorded to be effective.

One corrolary to the above is that works only enter the public domain
when donated thereto by an affirmative act (with the Fed Govt exception
noted above). It is no longer automatic.

That said, if the above referenced software is truley in the public
domain, then it can be freely copied, in whole or in part (including
one module). That is of course assuming that the public domain work
doesn't contain modules that are not in the public domain (i.e. the
program itself (including the organization of the modules) has been
dedicated to the public, but one or more of the modules were written
by someone else - remember what is in the public domain tracks exactly
someone's copyright rights at some point in time).

Note - this analysis was done for U.S. law, which I am familiar with.
It is at best only suggestive if what you are interested in is U.K. law.

Bruce E. Hayden
(303) 758-8400
bhayden@csn.org
From: jss@cs.bham.ac.uk (John Swapp-Sweet)
Newsgroups: misc.legal.computing
Subject: Intellectual Property Rights & Source Disks
Date: 26 Jan 93 13:37:45 GMT
Organization: University of Birmingham



Many books are published that contain source code listings, often they have a
disk with them containing the source code.  Sometimes there are listings but no
disk, the disk, it seems can be purchased for about US$40.

Given that one already has the book, and therefore the code, is one in breach of
an intellectual copyright if one makes a copy of somebody elses disk?  Or would
one be in breach if one placed the code on an FTP site?

This is a real issue for me as i feel that $40 (or more) is a real rip off, being
very tight.  Would I be in breach if I gave into my baser, stingy needs?
Newsgroups: misc.legal.computing
From: phoffman@orac.holonet.net (Paul E. Hoffman)
Subject: Re: Question about using others data in my program
Organization: HoloNet National Internet Access BBS: 510-704-1058/modem
Date: Thu, 28 Jan 1993 02:18:26 GMT

aa701@Freenet.carleton.ca (Michael Beaupre) writes:
>Do I need to get written permission from these companys before putting their
>product specifications into my program?

Very unlikely that you would need permission. If it is publically-known
information (that is, not a trade secret), and you are presenting it
in a format that is not copyrighted by someone else (that is, you aren't
using someone else's data in the same structure and format as they
published it), you are most likely completely in the clear. There are lots
of products such as you describe, and I doubt any of them asked permission.

>>Paul Hoffman


-- 
||  Why quote someone else?  ||
Newsgroups: misc.legal.computing