HDTenEightyP/NetNews huggingface dataset:
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: Mon, 28 Sep 1992 20:25:21 GMT

In article <16862.Sep2705.07.5792@virtualnews.nyu.edu>, brnstnd@nyu.edu (D. J. Bernstein) writes:

| Software is protected by copyright.

Software *may* be protected by copyright.  This is by no means the *only*
way software is protected.

| There is good reason to believe that ``process,'' within the context of
| patent law, means solely ``physical process.'' According to the courts,
| mental processes are not patentable; laws of nature and mathematical
| algorithms, even when applied to particular fields of technology, are
| not patentable; business methods are not patentable. The Supreme Court
| has not yet ruled on what are usually called ``software patents.''

But ``manufacturing processes'' *are* patentable.  And the Supreme court
*has* ruled on the application of software in this context (Diamond v. Bradley
and Diamond v. Diehr).  In this case the claimant, using a well known formula
(or algorithm), invented a machine containing a computer which used this
formula to control the curing of rubber.  The court upheld the patent even
though part of the patent was the well known formula (algorithm), because
it was contained in a entire process which was novel and unique.

I find this reasoning at least credible.  And I heartily agree that
patenting of algorithms themselves should *never* be allowed.

| 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!  Nor are they particularly
disinterested...  I am not alone in thinking that they are not correct 
in this assertion.  The ``purpose'' of patent law, as is the purpose of
so much other law, is to balance the rights of the individual against the
needs and requirements of society.  Contrary to the LPF's assertions,
the Constitution and the federal code recognize the individual's right
to property, and in particular intellectual property, and provide
protections against misappropriation and conversion.  

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

-- 
 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
Xref: sparky comp.org.eff.talk:6134 misc.int-property:1096 alt.suit.att-bsdi:415 comp.unix.bsd:6695
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: 3 Oct 92 20:42:35 GMT
Organization: IR

I pointed out the fundamental problem of mental process patents: there
is no reliable way to tell whether two mental processes are the same.

In response Scott McGregor wrote:
> At this point I disagree. The minute you apply it to disk or tape or
> memory to can in fact test if the inputs (i.e. physical state of the
> input media or signals on the input lines) were the same, you can tell
> if the outputs were the same (ditto), and you can tell if the equipment
> mediating the transformation (a computer in this case) were the same.

Scott is saying that any two algorithms which produce the same results
are, in fact, the same. But this isn't true. According to common sense
(and the courts) the two algorithms have to produce the same results _in
the same way_. Otherwise they're not the same.

To put it differently: A patent examiner following Scott's recipe for
determining equivalence would look at insertion sort, and quick sort,
and not be able to tell the difference.

> Because that's exactly where the benfit lies: in a
> disk that can store more, or a faster modem--not in a particular
> intermediate state that is invisible.

You cannot patent all processes which achieve a given result. In
particular, you can't patent the concept of a faster modem.

> > But mental processes
> >are inherently unpatentable. You simply cannot tell when two of them are
> >the same.
> Again, I agree.

Fine. The burden is now on you to explain how a patent examiner, faced
with ``The Fast Foo Method of Sorting Data'' and ``The Fast Bar Method
of Sorting Data,'' can reliably determine whether Foo is prior art for
Bar, or vice versa.

---Dan
Newsgroups: comp.org.eff.talk
From: jkp@cs.HUT.FI (Jyrki Kuoppala)
Subject: [news.misc,alt.activism] Commercialization of the Nets?
Reply-To: jkp@cs.HUT.FI (Jyrki Kuoppala)
Organization: Helsinki University of Technology, Finland
Date: Wed, 7 Oct 1992 01:33:17 GMT

A repost from news.misc,alt.activism:

From: bm665@cleveland.Freenet.Edu (Jay Robert Hauben)
Subject: Commercialization of the Nets?
Date: 6 Oct 1992 05:06:24 GMT
Organization: Case Western Reserve University, Cleveland, OH (USA)


     The following article appeared in the University of Michigan 
Information Technology Division publication INFORMATION TECH-
NOLOGY DIGEST, Volumne 1, Number 10, September 7, 1992 on page 3.
 
     Can anyone explain what this is all about? Doesn't the 
agreement this article describes violate the non-commercial 
essence of the Internet? I thought that government participation 
and public contribution to the developemnet of the Internet was 
predicated on the non-commercial nature of the traffic that the 
Internet would carry. 
 
 
        Merit Network Signs Agreement
       to Pass Commercial Data Traffic
    
    Merit Network has signed an agreement
    with Advanced Network & Services (ANS)
    of Elmsford, NY, that will allow Merit's
    business users throughout Michigan to
    access the same high-performance com-
    puter networking resources used by the
    nation's higher education and research
    communities and to access the global
    collection of computer networks called
    the Internet. ANS provides the highspeed
    T3 backbone used by the Internet. The
    gateway agreement was reached be-
    tween Merit and ANS subsidiary ANS
    CO+RE Systems (ANS CO+RE).
    
    Internet access for commercial users
    in Michigan will be provided through
    MichNet, Merit's statewide data net-
    work. MichNet is linked to the Na-
    tional Science Foundation's NSFNET,
    a nationwide, high-speed computer net-
    work for research and education that is
    also managed by Merit. NSFNET is
    connected to the ANS network, which
    provides high-speed T3 backbone ser-
    vices and access to the Internet.
    
    Previously, access to NSFNET was avail-
    able only to organizations engaged in
    activities directly related to research and
    education. The new agreement will allow
    MichNet to bridge the data networking
    gap that has existed between the state's
    corporate users and the nation's research
    and higher education communities, fos-
    tering collaboration in areas ranging
    from information management to tech-
    nology transfer.
    
    Merit is an Ann Arbor-based, not-for-

    profit consortium of nine of Michigan's
    publicly funded universities. MichNet
    also serves a variety of organizations in
    Michigan through Merit's affiliate pro-
    gram, including four-year colleges, com-
    munity colleges, K-12 schools, libraries,
    non-profit organizations, health care
    providers, state and federal govemment
    agencies, and commercial enterprises.


Newsgroups: comp.org.eff.talk
From: jkp@cs.HUT.FI (Jyrki Kuoppala)
Subject: Flame-filters, anyone?
Reply-To: jkp@cs.HUT.FI (Jyrki Kuoppala)
Organization: Helsinki University of Technology, Finland
Date: Mon, 5 Oct 1992 02:03:02 GMT

Sigh.  Mike unnecessarily flaming people with personal attacks on side
issues as usual - could EFF buy a flame-filter for Mike to use at
least in comp.org.eff.talk not to turn people off to EFF's goals and
action?

just an opinion..

//Jyrki
Newsgroups: comp.org.eff.talk
From: fwp@CC.MsState.Edu (Frank Peters)
Newsgroups: comp.org.eff.talk
Subject: Re: Child Pornography was Re: Sysops' Top 20 Legal Questions
Date: 29 Sep 92 02:29:38 GMT
Organization: Computing Center, Mississippi State University

In article <Bv9zH4.8qJ@ibmpcug.co.uk> gtoal@ibmpcug.co.uk (Graham Toal) says:
: In article <1992Sep28.032532.3841@eff.org> mnemonic@eff.org (Mike Godwin) writes:
: >>And if the whole image is completely computer-generated?  (Sorry, I know
: >>we're getting sidetracked; I'm just amused at the concept and wondering
: >>how many lawyer-hours might be expended on it...)
: >
: >I'm not sure how your question raises a different legal issue. Could you
: >elaborate? What different legal issue do you think your question raises? 
: 
: but if 3) the picture has been completely generated from a 3-d modelling
: program to a high quality of photo-realism, there is no child or
: parents to initiate a suit, and no child involved in pornographic
: acts, so who would be legally at risk for what?

I think there are two distinct situations here that you two are crossing:

1) A completely computer generated image of a real child.

2) A completely computer generated image of a child which doesn't 
   particularly resemble any real child.

When I first read Grahams original post I thought he was suggesting
situation (1).  From the above I gather he meang situation (2).
Newsgroups: comp.org.eff.talk
From: mnemonic@eff.org (Mike Godwin)
Subject: Re: EFFector Online 3.06: Bruce Sterling
Originator: mnemonic@eff.org
Organization: Electronic Frontier Foundation
Date: Thu, 1 Oct 1992 15:20:59 GMT

In article <1992Oct1.073106.233@nntp.hut.fi> jkp@cs.HUT.FI (Jyrki Kuoppala) writes:
>>                            Bruce Sterling
>>                         bruces@well.sf.ca.us
>
>>I don't recall cautioning Gibson that his novel might lead to anarchist
>>hackers selling their expertise to the ferocious and repulsive apparat
>>that gave the world the Lubyanka and the Gulag Archipelago. I don't
>>think I could have issued any such caution, even if I'd felt the danger
>>of such a possibility, which I didn't. I still don't know in what
>>fashion Gibson might have changed his book to avoid inciting evildoers,
>>while still retaining the integrity of his vision -- the very quality
>>about the book that makes it compelling and worthwhile.
>
>I don't know if Bruce is reading this, but anyway I would be
>interested in knowing people's viewpoint on this:
>
>Is it equally evil to work for U.S. government?

What do *you* think, Jyrki? 

Incidentally, you should know that Bruce Sterling has long maintained
correspondences with Soviet science-fiction fans and writers and
publishers of samizdata. He has had countless first-hand accounts of life
in the Soviet Union on which to base his opinion.

If you are reading his comments here as some kind of reflexive U.S.
chauvinism, you haven't read enough Bruce Sterling.

I think it is reasonable to draw a moral distinction between "working for
the U.S. government" and the Hannover Hackers' attempts to break into
American systems in order to get money and drugs. After all, in the United
States, one normally can get better access to money and drugs by working
for someone *other* than the U.S. government.


--Mike



-- 
Mike Godwin,    |"The meeting of two personalities is like the contact 
mnemonic@eff.org| of two chemical substances: if there is any reaction, 
(617) 864-0665  | both are transformed."
EFF, Cambridge  |                           --Carl Jung 
Newsgroups: comp.org.eff.talk
From: mnemonic@eff.org (Mike Godwin)
Subject: Re: Re- EFFector Online 3.06- B
Originator: mnemonic@eff.org
Organization: Electronic Frontier Foundation
Date: Fri, 2 Oct 1992 19:48:33 GMT

In article <199210021730.AA28626@eff.org> mc/G=Brad/S=Hicks/OU=0205925@mhs.attmail.com writes:
 
>Is it really as impossible as it seems to get people here, especially Mike
>Godwin, to remember that at the time of the hack, the United States was
>the only nuclear power with an explicit "first use" policy?

Brad Hicks is being dishonest. At no time have I denied what the
United States's policy was. His implication that I do not remember what
that policy was is not grounded in any fact whatsoever.

I respond to this false statement only because Hicks feels compelled to
use my name for some reason. 

Brad Hicks needs to remember that it is possible to have the same facts as
Hicks, yet disagree with him. Had Pengo, Hess, et al been truly motivated
by moral opposition to the United States policy, they wouldn't have asked
for money and drugs for their services.


--Mike




-- 
Mike Godwin,    |"Liberty resides in the rights of that person
mnemonic@eff.org| whose views you find most odious."
(617) 864-0665  | 
EFF, Cambridge  |                           --John Stuart Mill
From: andy@ccwf.cc.utexas.edu (Andrew Hackard)
Newsgroups: comp.org.eff.talk
Subject: Re: Strange laws (was Re: Modem detection software)
Date: 26 Sep 92 18:57:57 GMT
Organization: Attack of the Quayle Potatoes

In article <75.2abff9e7@ivgate> wes.perkhiser@ivgate.omahug.org writes:
>Actually, in some locations in the US of A, the possesion of "burglar tools"
>(i.e. lock picks, glass cutters, etc.) is indeed illegal.  As are some guns in
>some areas.  

In Texas, it is still illegal to carry a concealed wire cutter, several
decades after the end of the range wars.  I guess you COULD use it to cut 
a vein or something, once the vein was exposed with a glass cutter. :-)

-- 
--Andrew Hackard                                 If I spoke for UT, this post
  andy@ccwf.cc.utexas.edu                        would make even less sense.

                              Eddie/Marvin '92:
               We support a kindler, gentler depressive state...
                        as improbable as it may seem.
Newsgroups: comp.org.eff.talk,misc.int-property,alt.suit.att-bsdi
From: dichter@chdasic.sps.mot.com (Carl Dichter)
Subject: Re: Letter asking for help with Apple from the US VP
Organization: SPS
Distribution: usa
Date: Fri, 2 Oct 1992 17:29:07 GMT

In article <RLK.92Sep28183414@underprize.think.com>, rlk@underprize.think.com (Robert Krawitz) writes:
|> 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.

Actually, you are right. Quoting from "Patent it Yourself" by patent attorney 
David Pressman, page 15-13:

"Common Misconception: That which you do in your own home or for your own personal
 use will not infringe a patent that is otherwise applicable.
 Fact: While "home infringement" may be difficult to detect, nevertheless it is a
 form of infringement that is legally actionable and can subject the infringer to 
 paying damages and/or an injunction prohibiting further infringement."

David Pressman does not expound upon the rights of people experimenting with other
peoples patents. After all, this is a book about becoming a patent holder. If he did
I am sure that he would point out that it would be practically impossible for
the patent holder to prove damages, and, there is no provision for punitive damages.
Therefore, the worst that they can do is stop you from infringing.

By experimenting with and examining existing patents, you may find a use for the underlying
technology (in an entirely different field) that was not covered in the original patent. 
These new applications may be wholly patentable. If the patent holder had not patented 
their invention, and instead had tried to hold this knowledge as "trade secret", other 
fields could not benefit from this development. 

I welcome everyone to flame/complain/feedback to me after you have read my article
in favor of software patents. It's slated for the November issue of
UNIX Review magazine.

----------------------
Carl R. Dichter               "iwannanugui"
Motorola ASIC Division
email: dichter@chdasic.sps.mot.com
/*
** Quick to judge, quick to anger.... slow to understand. 
** Ignorance and prejudice, and fear, walk hand in hand."
** --Neil Peart"
*/
From: ggw@wolves.uucp (Gregory G. Woodbury)
Newsgroups: comp.org.eff.talk
Subject: Re: Sysops' Top 20 Legal Questions
Date: 28 Sep 92 02:14:36 GMT
Distribution: na
Organization: Wolves Den UNIX
X-Md4-Signature: 4623b40816327d5d47389170443269e1

>mnemonic@eff.org (Mike Godwin) writes:
>
> What questions do you have? Please post them here, or send them to me at
> mnemonic@eff.org.

One problem that occurs with increasing frequency is that a private site
(e.g. a persons personal machine running Waffle or FSUUCP etc.) is
downstream from some corporation or university site.  Their email
addresses may contain the name of the corp or university in the path.

Now the reason they have this path may well be that the upstream entity
is where they work, but for some reason, they do all of their news/email
to/from the personal machine, and not the upstream site.

No matter, some clueless person takes a dislike to something they are
doing or saying, or someone forges something in the name of this private
site, and the clueless person decides to write to some bigwig at the
upstream site, threatening the bigwig's entity with vague, wild or
scandalous threats of law or embarassment.  (Bigwig@upstream.site, of
course, is NOT a computer person, and knows not the difference between
email and netnews and the main hierarchies and alt, etc...)

What sort of protection can there be for the sites (both the personal
site and the upstream entity) over this kind of harassment.

More generally, should there be a memorandum of understanding or
something similar between sites to help define this situation?

Details don't seem significant, but I know of at least TWO situations on
the net where this has occurred, and there is potential for a third on
going.
-- 
Gregory G. Woodbury @ The Wolves Den UNIX, Durham NC
UUCP: ...dukcds!wolves!ggw   ...duke!wolves!ggw           [use the maps!]
Domain: ggw@wolves.Durham.NC.US  ggw@cds.duke.edu  ggw%wolves@duke.cs.duke.edu
[The line eater is a boojum snark! ]           <standard disclaimers apply>
From: betsys@cs.umb.edu (Elizabeth Schwartz)
Newsgroups: comp.org.eff.talk
Subject: Child Pornography was Re: Sysops' Top 20 Legal Questions
Date: 26 Sep 92 17:34:56 GMT
	<1992Sep25.154248.12407@eff.org>
Organization: University of Massachusetts at Boston

In article <1992Sep25.154248.12407@eff.org> mnemonic@eff.org (Mike Godwin) writes:

>>Ed Cavazos and I have discussed:  suppose I take a photography of a 9 year
>>old in a bathing suit, digitally scan it, and via the wonders of a paint
>>program, make her appear nude.   Is this pornography?

>It's not a violation of the federal child-porn statutes, which require the
>sexual use of a child.

>The FBI prosecutes photographs of minors only if the taking of those
>photographs violated the specific provisions of 18 USC 2252 et seq., which
>include "the use of a minor engaging in sexually explicit conduct."

   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?
  It certainly is really really nasty.

  I know there have been cases where magazines have published fake
pictures of nude adults. What has been the outcome?
--
System Administrator                  Internet: betsys@cs.umb.edu
MACS Dept, UMass/Boston               BITNET:ESCHWARTZ%UMBSKY.DNET@NS.UMB.EDU
100 Morrissy Blvd                     Staccato signals
Boston, MA 02125-3393                      of constant information....
Newsgroups: comp.org.eff.talk
From: learn@speedy.acns.nwu.edu (William J. Vajk)
Subject: Re: EFFector Online 3.06: Bruce Sterling
Organization: Dares No Organization Like Dis Organization
Date: Fri, 2 Oct 1992 01:55:09 GMT

In article <1992Oct1.152059.28666@eff.org> Mike Godwin writes:

>Incidentally, you should know that Bruce Sterling has long maintained
>correspondences with Soviet science-fiction fans and writers and
>publishers of samizdata. He has had countless first-hand accounts of life
>in the Soviet Union on which to base his opinion.

This is useful, as I am certain we all agree. On the other side is the
question regarding the cultural background forming the basis through which 
Bruce filters the information he has received. 

Given any number of first hand accounts we may read about blood sacrifice 
(the priest rips the beating heart from the body and holds it up for all to 
see,) how many of us could relate rationally to then Mayan culture of the 
earliest periods of Spanish conquest? Our opinions are based in our own
culture and value system. It is a similar problem to that experienced
by members of subcultures in the US today. They feel no one understands
them as they would wish to be understood. They are usually correct.

And thus it is that Bruce bases decisions in an essentially American culture.
He has explained something of his background to us, and is in many ways
the member of a subculture outside the "mainstream."

>If you are reading his comments here as some kind of reflexive U.S.
>chauvinism, you haven't read enough Bruce Sterling.

It seems to me that the piece is written to stand alone. In the case of the
net, which is where we are discussing it, it is indeed a stand-alone. As such, 
I don't see why readers not familiar with his works would be reasonably 
expected to look beyond the presentation. As a stand-alone piece, it does 
read very much like an example of reflexive U.S. chauvinism.

>I think it is reasonable to draw a moral distinction between "working for
>the U.S. government" and the Hannover Hackers' attempts to break into
>American systems in order to get money and drugs. After all, in the United
>States, one normally can get better access to money and drugs by working
>for someone *other* than the U.S. government.

Everyone I know works for money (or has worked for money.) Case of employer
is not at issue, in that our European correspondant is correct. Drugs are
a matter of individual choice, independent of employment, and have nothing
to do with the morality we are discussing, that of the hacker counterculture.
I think the introduction of drugs as an issue is bogus, serving to diffuse the 
real arguments via handwaving dismissal.

As an interesting view regarding morality in general, I was astonished
recently to have a woman friend of mine dubb another who does not sleep
around as a slut, and one who does indeed sleep around as a fine person.

The filters of "social acceptability" work in strange ways, and are rarely
as universally rational as we generally like to believe. I think you missed
the essence of the European input.

Bill Vajk

Newsgroups: comp.org.eff.talk