HDTenEightyP/NetNews huggingface dataset:
From: peter@ferranti.com (peter da silva)
Subject: Re: Patents:  What they are.  What they aren't.  Other factors.
Organization: Xenix Support, FICC
Distribution: usa
Date: Mon, 28 Sep 1992 18:59:54 GMT

In article <1992Sep26.161204.24573@rwwa.COM> witr@rwwa.com writes:
> It seems to me that to claim that patents *should not* apply to software
> involves some claim that software doesn't deserve protection as
> intellectual property.

In the United States, the basis of patent law is not whether a patentable
object deserves protection, but whether extending such protection promotes
advances in the state of the art. Whether it "deserves" this particular
form of intellectual property protection is almost meaningless.

> Yes.  An invention is ``something special''.  If there is nothing special
> in your program then it would seem that it contains no inventions, right?

The question is, how do you identify which lines of code contain inventions:
software systems are orders of magnitude more complex than any other class of
inventions. A *simple* program is thousands of lines long, and each line has
the potential of violating a patent. How do you determine if it does or not?
Perform a thousand patent searches? Even condensing the program to the set
of operations you think it involves will vastly increase the cost of developing
software.

> This is certainly one way to find out.  This disturbs people (I 
> wonder why ;-) ).  But it is no different from a guy who invents a
> (say) boat-cleaning widget.

A boat-cleaning widget is unlikely to use more than a handful of potentially
patentable processes and components.
-- 
Peter da Silva                                               `-_-'
Ferranti Intl. Ctls. Corp.                                    'U` 
Sugar Land, TX  77487-5012
+1 713 274 5180                                   Har du kramat din varg idag?
Newsgroups: comp.org.eff.talk,misc.int-property,alt.suit.att-bsdi,comp.unix.bsd
From: 0002737218@mcimail.com (David W. Batterson)
Subject: Govt. Online
Originator: daemon@eff.org
Organization: EFF mail-news gateway
Date: Mon, 28 Sep 1992 16:58:00 GMT

                 ONLINE ACCESS TO ELECTED REPRESENTATIVES
                             by David Batterson

It is vital that we get our elected officials (or their key staff members)
online.  To do this, we must contact them and _demand_ it.  Our elected
officials work for US; _we_ pay their salaries.  We want to make it more
convenient for us (the voters) to express our views and receive feedback
quickly (rather than weeks or months for snailmail to be written and
mailed out to constituents).  Congressional staffers have internal email
via LANs for _their_ convenience.  But what about the convenience
of the _voters_ (their bosses)?  Why are _we_ neglected?

Please edit this form (or create your own form/letter) and mail/fax it to
your elected representatives (city, county, state and federal).  And please
distribute this widely.  If enough of us say we want online access, we will
_get_ it.

If they don't respond [most of my efforts have brought NO response], follow
up via phone or mail again.  Don't let them off the hook!
It's time to bring them 'dragging and screaming' into the digital '90s.

BTW, I did get a response from Rep. Les AuCoin [rather from a staff member
in Portland who knows NOTHING about email].  Her response:  "Part of the
reason the House Administration does not allow Member offices to purchase
email services is the potential for contracting computer viruses."

What a crock!  It is not only moronic, but it's totally irresponsible for a
Congressional staffer to make such a bogus statement.  Don't let other govt.
officials feed you this crap.  If necessary, educate them about email,
viruses, BBSs, modem use, etc.  Believe me, they NEED educating!

FORM FOLLOWS:
-----------------------------------------------------------------------------
<date>

Dear _________:

RE: Online Access

As a person very interested in the political process and a user of online
services, I wish to have online access to my city, county, state and federal
elected officials so that I can send and receive email.

Please advise if you are online, or if you plan to be in the future.

YOUR online address or ID (if any):

MCI Mail:
CompuServe:
PRODIGY:
GEnie:
Internet:
BBS:
Other:

If NOT online, when do you plan to go online, and what online system will you
be using?

 BBS:
 CompuServe:
 etc.

My first choice for reaching you online would be ___________.  But I would
also like to be able to send/receive email via ___________.

Sincerely,


<name>
<address>
<phone, fax>
<online address/ID>
From: ygoland@edison.seas.ucla.edu (The Jester)
Newsgroups: comp.org.eff.talk
Subject: Re: 386 Box + Unix
Date: 27 Sep 92 19:16:56 GMT
Organization: PGP VER2 Key Available Upon Request

In article <Bv5y95.B58@news.cso.uiuc.edu> tinsel@uiuc.edu writes:
>predat0r@digund.uucp (Predat0R)  writes:
>
>> I would like more information on this 386 box w/unix! If you say they
>> are so easy to come by, prove it. If they cost so little how come you
>> never see them? Etc...
>
>Nice Generic PC-Compatible ......................$2500
Only if you buy a name brand! A nice 'generic' shouldn't cost
anywhere NEAR that much! I got a 486/33mhz w/210 drive, tower case,
3.5, 5.25, super vga monitor (.28 non-interlaced) and 1 meg video
card for $1800 and that was 6 MONTHS ago, I'v seen the same system
for between $1200-$1500 now. $2500.. shesh.. not likely.

>BSD386............................................free
Yes.. This was the reason I posted this:
	A.Where can I get BSD386? (is there a BSD486? =)
	B.Where can I find information about how BSD386 runs on the
	  dos box. I.e. can it coexist with dos & os/2 (both of
	  whom, along with windows, are currently on my poor abused
	  disk drive) and other such related performace information.

>or, 
>   A good 386 Unix..........................$200-$1000
Money for unix? Support AT&T? Not if *I* have anything to say about
it! I'd WRITE my own unix first! (And then get sued and spend the
rest of my life in jail =)




				The Jester
-- 
"Only the blind see in color."
"Any union based upon pigment is foolish ignorance designed to
give power to those few who enjoy power's taste above the common
welfare."
Xref: sparky comp.org.eff.talk:5989 misc.int-property:1028 alt.suit.att-bsdi:352
From: terry@cs.weber.edu (A Wizard of Earth C)
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: 28 Sep 92 21:42:28 GMT
Distribution: usa
Organization: Weber State University  (Ogden, UT)

In article <RLK.92Sep28122711@underprize.think.com> rlk@underprize.think.com (Robert Krawitz) writes:
>Recall that there is no fair use permitted for patents -- if I wrote a
>spreadsheet for my own use, I could still be liable for a patent
>violation.

Not "fair use", per se... ie: educational use of portions of the work is
not allowed without license, as it is for copyright.  Neither is "first use"
applicable, in that a device created under the auspices of a patent can not
be copied... although it may be resold.

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.


					Terry Lambert
					terry_lambert@novell.com
					terry@icarus.weber.edu
---
Any opinions in this posting are my own and not those of my present
or previous employers.
-- 
-------------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                        "I have an 8 user poetic license" - me
 Get the 386bsd FAQ from agate.berkeley.edu:/pub/386BSD/386bsd-0.1/unofficial
-------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Newsgroups: comp.org.eff.talk,misc.int-property,alt.suit.att-bsdi,comp.unix.bsd
From: brnstnd@nyu.edu (D. J. Bernstein)
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 00:20:37 GMT
Organization: IR

In article <1992Sep26.163059.24740@rwwa.COM> witr@rwwa.com writes:
> You must show that it is failing in practice, not theory.  Which is to say
> that you must show that ``innovation'' has, in practice, been stifled.

In 1984, Miller and Wegman at IBM invented a compression algorithm often
called MW2. At the same time, independently, Welch at Unisys invented a
compression algorithm often called LZW. Both IBM and Unisys filed for,
and received, patents. Surprise: MW2 and LZW are the same algorithm.
Explain how innovation was encouraged here.

Later in that decade, Storer invented a compression algorithm he calls
AP. Not long after that Bernstein (yeah, me) independently invented the
same algorithm. Not long after that Horspool independently invented the
*same* algorithm. Storer applied for and received a patent; the other
two of us independently gave the algorithm to the public, but nobody can
use it. Explain how innovation was encouraged here.

Seems to me the public loses out. And we're just talking about one tiny
field of programming here: non-statistical LZ78-like compression. How
many examples are there in other fields?

---Dan
From: greeny@top.cis.syr.edu (J. S. Greenfield)
Newsgroups: comp.org.eff.talk,comp.admin.policy,alt.censorship,alt.comp.acad-freedom.talk
Subject: Re: Banned Computer Material 1992
Date: 3 Oct 92 12:50:46 GMT
Organization: Syracuse University, CIS Dept.

In article <1992Oct2.111319.26055@nntp.hut.fi> jkp@cs.HUT.FI (Jyrki Kuoppala) writes:

>>The Supreme Court has ruled that there
>>are limits to the freedom of speech the first amendment confers.
>
>>And
>>obscenity has been declared by the Supreme Court not to be protected
>>speech.
>
>The topic wasn't what any of the Supreme Courts since the founding of
>USA have said, the topic was what the Constitution says.
>
>Does the Constitution give a monopoly of interpretation to the Supreme Court?

Yes--at least in terms of any *legal* meaning.

Basically, you have it exactly backwards.  One does not need to add an explicit
disclaimer, "According to the SC..." when citing (what you call)
"controversial" SC interpretation of the Constitution.

Rather, one should fell completely free to cite SC interpretation as *the*
meaning of the Constitution.

Where an individual disagrees with the SC as to the "proper" interpretation
of the document, he or she should feel free to say "According to the SC..."
And where one provides one's *own* interpretation, it should be prefaced
with something to the effect of "IMHO..."


-- 
J. S. Greenfield                                         greeny@top.cis.syr.edu
(I like to put 'greeny' here, 
but my d*mn system wants a 
*real* name!)                        "What's the difference between an orange?"
Newsgroups: comp.org.eff.talk
From: jkp@cs.HUT.FI (Jyrki Kuoppala)
Subject: Re: Flame-filters, anyone?
Reply-To: jkp@cs.HUT.FI (Jyrki Kuoppala)
Organization: Helsinki University of Technology, Finland
Date: Mon, 5 Oct 1992 15:23:09 GMT

In article <1992Oct5.034828.13300@eff.org>, mnemonic@eff (Mike Godwin) writes:
>How were you flamed, Jyrki? Over here, mere disagreement with one's
>opinion is not normally classified as a flame.

I was talking more about your comments to Brad Hicks.

As to my comments, your mention of "Kuoppala's distinction" didn't
seem quite what I would expect in a serious discussion where
dissenting opinions are respected.  Might be just my tiredness of
ad-hominen attacks on another forum, though.

//Jyrki
Newsgroups: comp.org.eff.talk,comp.admin.policy,alt.censorship,alt.comp.acad-freedom.talk
From: greeny@top.cis.syr.edu (J. S. Greenfield)
Subject: Re: Banned Computer Material 1992
Organization: Syracuse University, CIS Dept.
Date: Sun, 4 Oct 92 11:44:34 EDT

In article <1992Oct3.192125.18758@nntp.hut.fi> jkp@cs.HUT.FI (Jyrki Kuoppala) writes:
>
>You said you agree with me that the Constitution does not prohibit
>obscenity but guarantees freedom of speech.  Now you are saying that
>obscenity is regulable under the Constitution.  (sorry if my
>undersanding was incomplete).  I think there's a contradiction here
>somewhere.

As I recall, he said that the obscenity exception was not explicitly
stated in the constitution.  That creates no contradiction--lots of
stuff was (both purposefully and inadvertantly) left implicit in the
constitution.


>>>I think it would be best
>>>to qualify clearly unconstitutional interpretations (or ones where
>>>there's considerable disagreement) by things like "according to the
>>>current interpretation [by the Supreme Court]".
>
>I'll try to clarify.  I have a document, the U.S. Constitution.  I
>call "Constitutional" things that comply with that document.  I call
>"unconstitutional" things that don't comply with that document.  Now,
>the document talks nothing about "obscenity" but rather guarantees
>freedom of speech.  Also, it is a document which enumerates the powers
>of government.  This is why I call prohibition on obscenity clearly
>unconstitutional.  I don't think it changes to be constitutional if
>Donald Duck, Miko Godwin, Frank Zappa, George Bush or the U.S. Supreme
>Court says it's constitutional.  It will be "judged constitutional by
>Mike Godwin" or any of the others above.

This was *exactly* the point I made earlier.  Anybody can express *his*
or *her* interpretation of the Constitution by stating, "IMHO, the
Constitution *really* says..."

But unless it is *obvious* from context (and it was not in the case of
your original remark) the absence of any such disclaimer implies that
one is refering to the SC interpretation, since that is the leaglly-
binding interpretation.


Come on now, this discussion has really become silly.  IMNSHO, there
is no basis for the regulation of "obscenity" in the Constitution.

But that ain't the way the SC sees it--and I wouldn't think of making
the above statement without prefacing it with the IMNSHO.


-- 
J. S. Greenfield                                         greeny@top.cis.syr.edu
(I like to put 'greeny' here, 
but my d*mn system wants a 
*real* name!)                        "What's the difference between an orange?"
Newsgroups: comp.org.eff.talk
From: kd1hz@anomaly.sbs.risc.net (Michael P. Deignan)
Subject: Re: Unsolicited commercial email
Organization: The Rhode Island Internet Systems Cooperative Network
Date: Sat, 03 Oct 1992 04:10:23 GMT

amirza@bronze.ucs.indiana.edu (Anmar Caves) writes:

>I got an advertisement from abacus@gwinnett.com via email advertising
>their services.  I called their 1-800 number and got passed around
>when I expressed my concerns over junk mail via the internet.

Yes, I received the same mailing. Probably every person who recently
posted to USENET will receive this message - I believe they simply took
From: headers from USENET postings, parsed the addresses, and e-mailed
a form letter.

Clearly, this action is in violation of the NSFnet's Acceptable Use 
Policy (for those sites who receive their mail/news via NSF circuits).

For those that don't, it is still in very poor taste.

>Specifically I'd like to know what can be done about this.

Not much. Complain to their feed about the junk mail - that's about it.

Md
-- 
--  Michael P. Deignan                      / Sex is hereditary. If your 
--  Domain: mpd@anomaly.sbs.com            /  parents never had it, chances 
--    UUCP: ...!uunet!rayssd!anomaly!mpd  /   are you won't either...
-- Telebit: +1 401 455 0347              /
Newsgroups: comp.org.eff.talk
From: wcs@anchor.ho.att.com (Bill Stewart +1-908-949-0705)
Subject: Re: Copyrights when a company is out of business?
Organization: Sorcerer's Apprentice Cleaning Services
Distribution: usa
Date: Sun, 4 Oct 1992 04:57:56 GMT

In article <1992Sep30.220106.5921@miles.com> rms@miles.com (Rob Schultz) writes:
   Does anyone have any suggestions as to whether it would be legal for us to 
   use the software at the additional site?
   Since the company no longer exists, do we have any obligation to continue
   to honor the license agreement (contract)?  If so, with whom do we now have
   a contract?  (To my knowledge, the company simply folded.  They apparently 
   were not bought out by someone else.)  Who holds the copyright to this 
   database software?
Do you know if the company was a corporation or a partnership?
If the latter, then the partners presumably split up any remaining assets,
and the right to future sales is one of those assets, even if they
didn't think about it.  If it's a corporation, and it still exists and
has owners (even if it's not doing anything), or sold off its assets,
then somebody still owns the rights.  

Now, whoever owns them may not care.  But they might, and you really
should try to find them.  Or you might talk to a lawyer who
specializes in that sort of stuff - it's happened before :-)

--
				Pray for peace;      Bill
#Bill Stewart 908-949-0705 wcs@anchor.ho.att.com AT&T Bell Labs 4M312 Holmdel NJ
# Trickle-Down Economics: Giving money to government bureaucrats 
#	and hoping some will trickle down to the people who need help.
Xref: sparky comp.org.eff.talk:6024 misc.int-property:1048
From: friedman@gnu.ai.mit.edu (Noah Friedman)
Newsgroups: comp.org.eff.talk,misc.int-property
Subject: Re: Patents:  What they are.  What they aren't.  Other factors.
Date: 29 Sep 92 14:13:11 GMT
	<1992Sep28.234246.10011@pony.Ingres.COM>
Followup-To: comp.org.eff.talk
Organization: Free Software Foundation, 675 Mass Ave. Cambridge, MA 02139
In-reply-to: jpk@Ingres.COM's message of 28 Sep 92 23:42:46 GMT

In article <1992Sep28.234246.10011@pony.Ingres.COM> jpk@Ingres.COM (Jon Krueger) writes:
>> Why should the patent holder be permitted to deny anyone else the right
>> to make a copy? 
>
>She isn't; she's just permitted to deny others the right 
>sell it.


   That's not true.  Patent holders can restrict anyone from giving away
or simply using whatever their patent covers. 
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: Wed, 30 Sep 1992 14:40:52 GMT

In article <5329.Sep2920.40.4292@virtualnews.nyu.edu>,
 brnstnd@nyu.edu (D. J. Bernstein) writes:

| Now, are you saying that all the case law against patents on
| mathematical algorithms is useless? That any lawyer can replace
| ``Pythagorean theorem'' by ``Machine using pythagorean theorem'' and
| hence make the theorem patentable?

Thank you for clearing stating the point that is repeatedly confounded
in this discussion:

No.  What ``any lawyer'' can do is patent a ``Machine using pythagorean
theorem [to lace shoes]''.  This is *NOT* a patent of the pythagorean
theorem.

And this is exactly what the Court decided:  They uphead a patent for a
``machine using formula to cure rubber''.  The did *NOT* uphold a patent
on ``machine using formula'' nor did they uphold a patent on ``formula''.

Perhaps we can lay this one to rest, at least?

-- 
 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:6039 misc.int-property:1058 alt.suit.att-bsdi:380 comp.unix.bsd:6544
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 20:40:42 GMT
Organization: IR

In article <1992Sep29.161440.415@rwwa.COM> witr@rwwa.com writes:
> 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.

Diamond v. Diehr has nothing to do with this. In Diamond v. Diehr there
was an actual physical process---curing rubber---and the fact that a
computer was used to control part of the process was, according to the
Supreme Court, irrelevant.

Now, are you saying that all the case law against patents on
mathematical algorithms is useless? That any lawyer can replace
``Pythagorean theorem'' by ``Machine using pythagorean theorem'' and
hence make the theorem patentable? You know, there are court cases
saying specifically that you're not allowed to patent a process simply
by patenting all machines using the process. Somehow I wonder why the
courts would ban patents on ``laws of nature'' if you could still patent
``machine using laws of nature''!

---Dan
Newsgroups: comp.org.eff.talk
From: mnemonic@eff.org (Mike Godwin)
Subject: Re: Child Pornography was Re: Sysops' Top 20 Legal Questions
Originator: mnemonic@eff.org
Organization: Electronic Frontier Foundation
Date: Tue, 29 Sep 1992 04:25:13 GMT

In article <1992Sep29.022938.21782@ra.msstate.edu> fwp@CC.MsState.Edu (Frank Peters) writes:

>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).

It was unclear to me which he meant. In any case, (1) could be an
"invasion of privacy" tort (e.g., appropriation of likeness) even if it
were not a criminal violation under federal law.

It's hard to see how (2) could be either a federal crime or a tort, since
no actual child was used, and the image resembled no actual child.


--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 
Xref: sparky comp.org.eff.talk:6244 misc.int-property:1133
From: friedman@gnu.ai.mit.edu (Noah Friedman)
Newsgroups: comp.org.eff.talk,misc.int-property
Subject: Re: Patents:  What they are.  What they aren't.  Other factors.
Date: 4 Oct 92 19:02:59 GMT
	<1992Oct3.070637.26597@netcom.com> <1992Oct3.092317.2925@netcom.com>
Followup-To: comp.org.eff.talk
Organization: Free Software Foundation, 675 Mass Ave. Cambridge, MA 02139
In-reply-to: mcgregor@netcom.com's message of 3 Oct 92 09:23:17 GMT

In article <1992Oct3.092317.2925@netcom.com> mcgregor@netcom.com (Scott Mcgregor) writes:
>First of all, my personal opinion is that while personal use and sharing
>with a few friends can indeed be true infringement, I feel that such
>infringers are at very little risk of ever being sued, or of having to pay
>any substantial penalties even if they are sued. I wouldn't encourage
>people to infringe intentionally, just as I wouldn't encourage people to
>break traffic laws though it also appears to me that there is relatively
>little risk of detection to most people who speed and that the penalties
>for getting caught are low. I don't think we need to abolish speed limits
>out of the fear that everyone will get imprisoned.

   I think we do. 

   If the argument is that the little guy need not worry about getting
caught breaking the law, you are arguing that people should not respect the
law. 

   I basically have two choices with regard to the law.  I can either
follow them all to the letter, or I can decide to ignore them all and do
what I happen to think is ethically right (which is not to imply that the
law can't serve as a useful guide sometimes).  That's the only way I can
sleep at night with a guiltless conscience.  But I would prefer not to have
to be labeled as a criminal for doing what I think is reasonable, even if I
don't have to go to trial to try my crime. 

   We should have laws that citizens can respect and live by, and not
pretend they don't exist just because minor infractions happen to be
ignored.
Newsgroups: comp.org.eff.talk