HDTenEightyP/NetNews huggingface dataset:
From: fcrary@ucsu.Colorado.EDU (Frank Crary)
Subject: Re: Supreme Court and U.S. Constitution (was Re: Banned Computer Material 1992)
Organization: University of Colorado, Boulder
Date: Wed, 7 Oct 1992 01:09:09 GMT

In article <1992Oct5.203001.29827@eff.org> mnemonic@eff.org (Mike Godwin) writes:
>I think it is probably not a good idea to insist that the Supreme Court's
>power of judicial review is not grounded in the Constitution, even though
>it is not explicitly granted there. Article III says that the judicial
>branch has jurisdiction over all cases and controversies that arise under
>the law and the Constitution of the United States. No other branch is
>granted this authority.

Having this jurisdiction doesn't mean they have the power to make final,
binding interpertations of the Constitution. It at least implies that
they can make rulings on specific cases, based on their understanding
of the Constitution. But it does _not_ even hint that everyone else
is required to defer to their interpertation. For them to have such
power is a good idea, and one that the people expect elected officials
to go along with, but there is nothing constitutional about it.

By the way, since you seem to think Supreme Court rulings carry 
great weight in matters of interperting the Constitution, can you
cite a single ruling, where the jurisdiction clause of Article Three
was interperted as a grant of the ultimate authority to interpert
the Constitution? Or that this clause (or any other in the Constitution)
compels the rest of the government to accept and support the Court's
rulings? (Don't waste your time: There are no such rulings. The
Court has only claimed these powers, without reference to the 
Constitution.)

>Your position about the Supreme Court's role is contrary to the generally
>accepted view in the United States of the role of the United States
>Supreme Court.

The generally accepted view, is that they have the power to make 
binding interpertations of the Constitution. However, it is _not_
the accepted view, that this power comes from the Constitution. Rather,
it comes from the people's expectations, and the political pressure
this puts on elected officials.

                                               Frank Crary
                                               CU Boulder

Xref: sparky comp.org.eff.talk:6080 misc.int-property:1081 alt.suit.att-bsdi:402 comp.unix.bsd:6633
From: barmar@think.com (Barry Margolin)
Newsgroups: comp.org.eff.talk,misc.int-property,alt.suit.att-bsdi,comp.unix.bsd
Subject: Re: Patents:  What they are.  What they aren't.  Other factors.
Date: 30 Sep 1992 23:15:00 GMT
Organization: Thinking Machines Corporation, Cambridge MA, USA
Distribution: inet
NNTP-Posting-Host: telecaster.think.com

In article <1992Sep30.035812.124@netcom.com> mcgregor@netcom.com (Scott Mcgregor) writes:
>Mr. Bernstein claims that changing the signals on a modem control line
>is inessential, as is changing polarities on magnetic media or
>changing phosphorescent displays on a cathode ray tube. But
>not vulcanization of rubber in Diamond vs. Diehr.  But should we
>accept his characterization of what is essential or inessential? 

Changing signals on a modem control line is a physical process, as is
changing polarities on a magnetic medium.  The problem is that the patent
holders claim that their patent covers both of these, and extends to any
other medium.  I.e., they claim that any process that performs the
compression algorithm is covered by their patent, regardless of the
specific physical transformation that is performed using the result.
That's what makes the physical transformation inessential.

So, a modem that performs compression is a patentable device, as is a disk
interface that compresses.  But the compression algorithm itself isn't
patentable.  If I find a new use for this algorithm, I should be able to
patent that as well, without infringing the patent on a compressing modem.

This raises a question about obviousness, though.  Given the well-known
existence of data compression algorithms, is there anything unobvious about
applying a particular one to any particular problem?  The LZW algorithm
itself may be novel, but algorithms aren't supposed to be patentable.
-- 
Barry Margolin
System Manager, Thinking Machines Corp.

barmar@think.com          {uunet,harvard}!think!barmar
Newsgroups: comp.org.eff.talk,comp.unix.bsd,comp.os.mach,misc.int-property,alt.suit.att-bsdi,comp.sys.mac.advocacy
From: rlk@underprize.think.com (Robert Krawitz)
Newsgroups: comp.org.eff.talk,misc.int-property,alt.suit.att-bsdi
Subject: Re: Letter asking for help with Apple from the US VP
Date: 29 Sep 92 01:34:14 GMT
Article-I.D.: underpri.RLK.92Sep28183414
	<1992Sep27.094818.2416@fcom.cc.utah.edu>
	<RLK.92Sep28122711@underprize.think.com>
	<1992Sep28.214228.27433@fcom.cc.utah.edu>
Distribution: usa
Organization: Thinking Machines Corporation, Cambridge Mass., USA
NNTP-Posting-Host: underprize.think.com
In-reply-to: terry@cs.weber.edu's message of Mon, 28 Sep 92 21:42:28 GMT

In article <1992Sep28.214228.27433@fcom.cc.utah.edu> terry@cs.weber.edu (A Wizard of Earth C) writes:

   But you are incorrect that I can not build something infringing on a patent
   for personal use only.  This is perfectly legal.  I can *not*, however,
   sell it at any future date, nor give it away, except as an inheritance.

   Given your example of writing a spreadsheet for your own use, yes, that is
   perfectly legal.  Giving me a copy is not, giving me your only copy is not,
   but willing it to me is.

I'd be happy to be proven wrong, but it was my understanding that there
are *no* exceptions, not even personal use only.
--
ames >>>>>>>>>  |	Robert Krawitz <rlk@think.com>	245 First St.
bloom-beacon >  |think!rlk				Cambridge, MA  02142
harvard >>>>>>  .	Thinking Machines Corp.		(617)234-2116

Member of the League for Programming Freedom -- write league@prep.ai.mit.edu
Newsgroups: comp.org.eff.talk
From: tenney@netcom.com (Glenn S. Tenney)
Subject: S893 - copying software now a felony
Summary: bill passes specifying penalties for copying software
Organization: Netcom - Online Communication Services (408 241-9760 guest)
Distribution: us
Date: Tue, 6 Oct 1992 09:06:50 GMT

On Sunday, 4 October 1992, the House passed their version of 
S893 (already passed by the Senate).  My understanding is that
it is all now mutually agreed upon and on its way to the President.

Last Thursday the bill was changed slightly, so the copy I
have from a week ago is out of date.  The bill specifies
that:

1. Not more than 5 years in prison and/or fine ($250,000 I believe) "if
the offense consists of the reproduction or distribution of at least 10
copies or phonorecords, of 1 or more copyrighted works, with a retail
value of more than $2,500".  The change specifies that these copies must
be made within 180 days.

2. Not more than 10 years in prison for second or subsequent offenses
(and/or fine again).

3. Not more than 1 year in prison (and/or fine) in any other case.


---

It's my view that probably 80% (well, at least a majority!) of computer
owners are now felons.  If you have one naughty copy of some software
(say something selling for $400) and make a weekly backup of your
hard disk, you are a felon in ten weeks.  In twenty weeks, you
might be a multiple offender just waiting for a ten year vacation
in San Quentin!

What a lousy law!  The IEEE Intellectual Property Committee has
been working against this bill, but to no avail... Thanks, though,
to the IEEE US Activities staff in DC who were in constant contact
with Senate and House staff trying to convince them that this
needed to be changed. 
-- 
Glenn Tenney
voice: (415) 574-3420      fax: (415) 574-0546
tenney@netcom.com          Ham radio: AA6ER
Xref: sparky comp.org.eff.talk:6173 misc.int-property:1110 comp.unix.bsd:6734 alt.suit.att-bsdi:428
From: jpk@Ingres.COM (Jon Krueger)
Newsgroups: comp.org.eff.talk,misc.int-property,comp.unix.bsd,alt.suit.att-bsdi
Subject: Re: Patents:  What they are.  What they aren't.  Other factors.
Date: 2 Oct 92 18:43:40 GMT
Reply-To: jpk@Ingres.COM (Jon Krueger)
Distribution: usa
Organization: Ingres Division, ASK Computer Systems.

Robert Withrow thinks:
> at no time can you separate ``data'' from *some* physical phenomena
> expressing it (even in your mind).

Sure I can.  Same way I separate triangles from pictures
of them on the blackboard.

But to put physical phenomena in my mind is simply sort-crossing.
Perhaps this is the source of your confusion.

-- Jon

Jon Krueger  jpk@ingres.com  
Newsgroups: comp.org.eff.talk
From: brad@clarinet.com (Brad Templeton)
Subject: Re: Unsolicited commercial email
Organization: ClariNet Communications Corp.
Date: Sat, 03 Oct 1992 00:28:17 GMT

I think we all got the mail, and since it was not phrased well, I
expect they'll get a number of complaints and not do it again.

However, in the long term it is certain that there will be junk E-mail.
And I want to encourage it because I think for both us and them it
is a lot better.

For one, you don't chop down the forests or consume the other immense
resources used in printing and transporting junk mail.  A vast proportion
of the post office's shipping is junk mail, based on my mailbox.

For the sender it's also vastly cheaper.

Unlike junk paper mail, "we have the technology" to make it easier to
for the recipient.   I favour requiring a special header on unsolicited
commercial E-mail that tags it as such.   Indeed, perhaps even something
in the SMTP dialogue.    Then people who don't want it can reject it -- even
before it gets sent.  And those who want to filter their junk mail by
computer before they ever see it can do so.

The special header would of course contain standardized fields indicating
the type of junk mail and the type of product being marketed, to let us
control what gets to us.

So I say, bring on the junk E-mail, but lay down some standards for special
headers so we can have our computer bounce it for us when we want it to,
and stop the waste of paper E-mail.
-- 
Brad Templeton, ClariNet Communications Corp. -- Sunnyvale, CA 408/296-0366
Xref: sparky comp.org.eff.talk:6000 misc.int-property:1036 alt.suit.att-bsdi:360 comp.unix.bsd:6491
From: brnstnd@nyu.edu (D. J. Bernstein)
Newsgroups: comp.org.eff.talk,misc.int-property,alt.suit.att-bsdi,comp.unix.bsd
Subject: Re: Patents:  What they are.  What they aren't.  Other factors.
Date: 29 Sep 92 00:39:53 GMT
Organization: IR

In article <1992Sep28.202521.28752@rwwa.COM> witr@rwwa.com writes:
> I find this reasoning at least credible.

I too don't see any problem in the Supreme Court's decision in Diamond
v. Diehr. They ignored ``point of novelty,'' which to me looks like the
proper approach to patents, but that's just legal fashion.

The problem I see is that the USPTO has been granting patents on mental
processes, including mathematical algorithms---as well as mental
processes with insignificant post-solution activity. (Mental process:
LZW compression, as Andy Sherman vividly demonstrated on comp.patents.
Insignificant post-solution activity: Writing the result of LZW to a
storage device.)

Other people worry about a larger class of patents, ``software
patents,'' which include such things as the XOR patent. As far as I can
tell the only problems with the XOR patent are obviousness and prior
art. I see mental processes as being truly outside the scope of patent
law, for a variety of reasons. I don't see software in general as being
inherently unpatentable. But some people disagree.

> And I heartily agree that
> patenting of algorithms themselves should *never* be allowed.

Fine. That's the important issue. Say goodbye to the LZW patent, the AP
patent, the RSA patent, the public-key cryptography patent, the key
exchange patent, et al.

> | Protection is not the purpose of intellectual property law! Read
> | prep.ai.mit.edu:pub/lpf/laf-fallacies.texi.
> The LPF is hardly the last word on this topic!

That paper isn't an LPF paper; it's a legal article which happens to be
available from an LPF archive site.

> Contrary to the LPF's assertions,
> the Constitution and the federal code recognize the individual's right
> to property, and in particular intellectual property,

No.

> Patent law is just such a protection, balancing society's need for
> technological innovation with the property rights of the inventor.

No. The sole aim of patent law is to encourage innovation. Any ownership
rights which might be granted in the pursuit of this goal are purely
incidental. Why don't you read the article?

---Dan
Newsgroups: comp.org.eff.talk,comp.unix.bsd,comp.os.mach,misc.int-property,alt.suit.att-bsdi,comp.sys.mac.advocacy
From: witr@rwwa.COM (Robert Withrow)
Subject: Re: Compression (Re: Letter asking for help with Apple from the US VP
Reply-To: witr@rwwa.com
Organization: R.W. Withrow Associates
Distribution: usa
Date: Wed, 30 Sep 1992 13:44:54 GMT

In article <1992Sep29.220513.3753@cs.ucla.edu>, 
  gast@oahu.cs.ucla.edu (David Gast) writes:

You misattributed Mr. Bernstein's remarks to me. 

Besides which, you say:

| First, if patent law were being followed correctly, it would be impossible
| for two patents on the same algorithm.

If patent law were being followed correctly you couldn't patent algorithms.
I believe the patents you mention claim devices that *use* these algorithms.

-- 
 Robert Withrow, Tel: +1 617 598 4480, Fax: +1 617 598 4430, Net: witr@rwwa.COM
 R.W. Withrow Associates, 21 Railroad Ave, Swampscott MA 01907-1821 USA
Newsgroups: comp.org.eff.talk
From: ckd@eff.org (Christopher Davis)
Subject: Re: Govt. Online
Organization: Electronic Frontier Foundation Tech Central
	<KFOGEL.92Sep28173427@mark1.cs.oberlin.edu>
Date: Tue, 29 Sep 1992 01:45:40 GMT

Karl> == Karl Fogel <kfogel@mark1.cs.oberlin.edu> 

 Karl> 	This is a good idea, but there is one important difference
 Karl> between snail-mail and email that is being overlooked here:
 Karl> everyone has (essentially) free access to snail-mail, but only
 Karl> those with computer/net access can use email.

The same argument applies, somewhat, to FAX machines.

But remember, you can send email to the Internet from CompuServe, GEnie,
MCI Mail, ATTMAIL, AppleLink, America OnLine, the WELL, the World,
Netcom, and many, many more...and maybe having better access to your
legislators will be an incentive to get online (I doubt it too :-).
--
Christopher K. Davis      |       NET.INSIGHTS INTO ARTISTIC CRITICISM:
<ckd@eff.org>   EFF #14   | ``[Y]ou don't cure bad art by locking it all up
System Administrator, EFF | in one museum, you cure it by throwing tomatoes
+1 617 864 0665  [CKD1]   | at bad artists.'' --Barry Shein <bzs@world.std.com>
Xref: sparky comp.org.eff.talk:6018 comp.unix.bsd:6516 comp.os.mach:1396 misc.int-property:1044 alt.suit.att-bsdi:368 comp.sys.mac.advocacy:800
From: karsh@sgi.com (Bruce Karsh)
Newsgroups: comp.org.eff.talk,comp.unix.bsd,comp.os.mach,misc.int-property,alt.suit.att-bsdi,comp.sys.mac.advocacy
Subject: Re: Letter asking for help with Apple from the US VP
Date: 29 Sep 92 10:06:17 GMT
Distribution: usa
Organization: Silicon Graphics, Inc.

In article <BZS.92Sep26231245@ussr.std.com> bzs@ussr.std.com (Barry Shein) writes:
>To my knowledge what has been patented have been algorithms, not
>software.

I think that this misses an important point.  An algorithm by itself is
not patentable.  A "software patent" would cover the use of an algorithm
(or algorithms) for specific useful purposes.

It is my understanding that you are free to use a patented algorithm
for purposes that were not taught in the patent.

Thus it's not the algorithm itself that is patented, but a combination
of an algorithm and a useful purpose.

Perhaps one of the patent lawyers out there could correct me if I'm
wrong about this.
--

			Bruce Karsh
			karsh@sgi.com
Newsgroups: comp.org.eff.talk,misc.int-property,alt.suit.att-bsdi
From: jpk@Ingres.COM (Jon Krueger)
Subject: Re: Patents:  What they are.  What they aren't.  Other factors.
Reply-To: jpk@Ingres.COM (Jon Krueger)
Organization: Ingres Division, ASK Computer Systems.
Distribution: usa
Date: 30 Sep 92 00:21:06 GMT

>>> [how to put something in public domain?]
>> Publish it before someone else patents it
> in countries with first-to-file rather than first-to-invent?

Good point.

Your strategy doesn't change: publish it as soon as possible.
Disclose everything you know as soon as you know it.

The strategy of the would-be patenter changes: file before
you publish instead of invent (and datestamp) before you
publish.

-- Jon

Jon Krueger  jpk@ingres.com  
Newsgroups: comp.org.eff.talk,misc.int-property,alt.suit.att-bsdi,comp.unix.bsd
From: witr@rwwa.COM (Robert Withrow)
Subject: Re: Patents:  What they are.  What they aren't.  Other factors.
Reply-To: witr@rwwa.com
Organization: R.W. Withrow Associates
Distribution: usa
Date: Tue, 29 Sep 1992 16:14:40 GMT

In article <29784.Sep2900.39.5392@virtualnews.nyu.edu>, brnstnd@nyu.edu (D. J. Bernstein) writes:

| Say goodbye to the LZW patent, the AP patent, the RSA patent, 
| the public-key cryptography patent, the key exchange patent, et al.

Taking RSA, if their patent (which I havn't read) attempts to claim
division of large prime numbers, or something like that, I'd agree, but
if it claims a ``machine that encrypts data'' using such an algoritym
then it seems like you are back in the Diamond v. Diehr area.  And this
is the area where I (tentatively at least) think it makes sense to
allow patents.  

-- 
 Robert Withrow, Tel: +1 617 598 4480, Fax: +1 617 598 4430, Net: witr@rwwa.COM
 R.W. Withrow Associates, 21 Railroad Ave, Swampscott MA 01907-1821 USA
Newsgroups: comp.org.eff.talk,misc.int-property,alt.suit.att-bsdi
From: mc/G=Brad/S=Hicks/OU=0205925@mhs.attmail.com
Subject: Re- SNEAKERS
Originator: daemon@eff.org
Organization: EFF mail-news gateway
Date: Wed, 30 Sep 1992 13:17:34 GMT

Date: 9/30/92   9:48 AM
Subj: Re: SNEAKERS
 
 >  WARNING>>> STUPID QUESTION <<<WARNING
 
 >  How does one rot13 text?
 
The only stupid question is one you don't ask.  rot13 is a utility, common
on UNIX and available (I gather) for MS-DOS, that swaps A-N with O-Z.
Since it's symmetrical, the same call encrypts and decrypts text.  Here's
the HyperTalk code I wrote to rot13 stuff:
 
  repeat with i = 1 to the number of chars in fld "text"
    get chartonum(char i of fld "text")
    if (65 * it) and (it * 77) then
      put numtochar(it+13) into char i of fld "text"
    else if (97 * it) and (it * 109) then
      put numtochar(it+13) into char i of fld "text"
    else if (78 * it) and (it * 90) then
      put numtochar(it-13) into char i of fld "text"
    else if (110 * it) and (it * 122) then
      put numtochar(it-13) into char i of fld "text"
    end if
  end repeat
 
 ----------------------------------------------------------------------
 J. Brad Hicks                 | Poor is the man whose pleasures depend
 mhs!mc!Brad_Hicks@attmail.com | on the permission of another.
 
Newsgroups: comp.org.eff.talk
From: farbrent!ajr3@ms.uky.edu
Subject: Re: Child Pornography was Re: Sysops' Top 20 Legal Questions
Originator: daemon@eff.org
Organization: EFF mail-news gateway
Date: Sat, 26 Sep 1992 18:30:26 GMT


##   It seems correct that a "fake" nude picture of a real child  
##would not be prosecutable on these grounds, but might it be illegal  
##for other reasons? If a real child is involved, and a  
##nude-appearing picture is published, the child could be caused  a  
##great deal of embarassment and possibly endangered. Couldn't this  
##be considered slander or libel or endangering the child or  
##something?

This could give rise to a cause of action on privacy grounds in that,  
unless you had obtained permission, you would be using a private  
individual's image without their permission. (This assumes you would  
somehow gain from the use)

j.
 

  


Newsgroups: comp.org.eff.talk
From: mc/G=Brad/S=Hicks/OU=0205925@mhs.attmail.com
Subject: Re- SNEAKERS
Originator: daemon@eff.org
Organization: EFF mail-news gateway
Date: Wed, 30 Sep 1992 13:21:35 GMT

Date: 9/30/92   9:48 AM
Subj: Re: SNEAKERS
 
 >  WARNING>>> STUPID QUESTION <<<WARNING
 
 >  How does one rot13 text?
 
The only stupid question is one you don't ask.  rot13 is a utility, common
on UNIX and available (I gather) for MS-DOS, that swaps A-M with N-Z.  All
other characters are unaffected.  Since it's symmetrical, the same call
encrypts and decrypts text.  Here's the HyperTalk code I wrote to rot13
stuff:
 
  repeat with i = 1 to the number of chars in fld "text"
    get chartonum(char i of fld "text")
    if (65 <= it) and (it <= 77) then
      put numtochar(it+13) into char i of fld "text"
    else if (97 <= it) and (it <= 109) then
      put numtochar(it+13) into char i of fld "text"
    else if (78 <= it) and (it <= 90) then
      put numtochar(it-13) into char i of fld "text"
    else if (110 <= it) and (it <= 122) then
      put numtochar(it-13) into char i of fld "text"
    end if
  end repeat
 
 ----------------------------------------------------------------------
 J. Brad Hicks                 | Poor is the man whose pleasures depend
 mhs!mc!Brad_Hicks@attmail.com | on the permission of another.
From: max@underg.UUCP (Max Cray)
Newsgroups: comp.org.eff.talk
Subject: Re: 386 Box + Unix
Date: Mon, 28 Sep 92 13:08:05 EDT
Organization: Underground Computing Foundation

wixer!cactus.org!wixer!pro-smof.cts.com!shiva@cactus.org (System Smof) writes:

> Is this BSD386 "free" if you already have ftp capability and "not free" if
> you can't use ftp?

If you have mail access you can use an ftpmail program to snarf files.
Send mail with the word 'help' to ftpmail@decwrl.dec.com, or
bitftp@pucc.princeton.edu. Works great. See...free software really is
free, and is the solutional to all of life's problems...Doom to all the
greedy capatalists pigs. Long live the revolution. Look for the next issue
of Digital Free Press for a detailed article. For subscription send mail
to underg!dfp-req@uunet.uu.net.

                                          -= Max =-
...!uunet!underg!max
...!cactus.org!underg!max
---------------------------------------------------------------------
 I program in C because it turns women on...
Newsgroups: comp.org.eff.talk
From: brnstnd@nyu.edu (D. J. Bernstein)
Newsgroups: comp.org.eff.talk,misc.int-property,alt.suit.att-bsdi,comp.unix.bsd
Subject: Re: Patents:  What they are.  What they aren't.  Other factors.
Date: 1 Oct 92 01:56:42 GMT
Organization: IR

In article <1992Sep30.143205.3171@rwwa.COM> witr@rwwa.com writes:
> But the rubber-curing patent
> doesn't claim the *algorithm*, it claims the *process*.

As defined by the law, ``algorithm'' is a synonym for ``process.''

Most people familiar with the word ``algorithm'' would consider it at
least a special case of ``process.''

What distinction are you attempting to draw?

> In other words, these effects are insignificant if they amount
> to nothing more than ``and then we write the result to a storage device''
> as you noted in the first paragraph.

Yes. They're also insignificant if they amount to simply collecting data
as input for the algorithm. There are other cases defined by the courts.
(It seems to me that ``point of novelty'' is a good way to determine
significance, but the CAFC has explicitly rejected ``point of novelty''
for reasons I don't understand, and instead adopted many special-case
rules.)

---Dan
Newsgroups: comp.org.eff.talk
From: nagle@netcom.com (John Nagle)
Subject: Re: DAT TAX
Date: Sat, 26 Sep 92 17:40:13 GMT
Organization: Netcom - Online Communication Services  (408 241-9760 guest) 

farbrent!ajr3@ms.uky.edu writes:
>Someone recently posted that the Audio Home Recording Act of 1991
>(S 1623, Commonly called the DAT TAX) had been passed in the house.
>This is not correct. The bill passed the Senate (on voice vote no  
>less) back in July and was transmitted to the House. It was recently  
>tabled in the House and is not likely to be heard from again during  
>this congress. 

       DAT as an audio medium is dead.  It failed in the marketplace.
So the push behind this legislation seems to have evaporated.  We may
see it again if either of the next two consumer magnetic audio media
catch on.

       I just hope the blank tapes remain available.   I use DAT tapes
for disk backups.

					John Nagle
Newsgroups: comp.org.eff.talk