HDTenEightyP/NetNews huggingface dataset:
From: orville%weyrich@tnet.com (Orville R. Weyrich)
Subject: Re: ATTENTION: All people who received a crack for Alchemy!!!
Reply-To: tnet.com!weyrich!orville
Organization: Weyrich Computer Consulting
Date: Tue, 14 Apr 92 07:39:56 GMT

In article <gthomas.702775828@chilko.ucs.ubc.ca> gthomas@unixg.ubc.ca (Guy R Thomas) writes:
>"The University of Oregon Continuation Centre settled a copyright lawsuit with
>the Software Publishers Association *to pay $130,000* as well as organize and
>host a national conference on copyright law and software use. This was the

Perhaps it's time to submit papers to the above-mentioned conference on the
subject of copyright ABUSE by look-and-feel folks like Apple and Lotus?

This really looks like a good opportunity for gnu-ish folks to make a
statement in a forum that may tell the SPA a thing or two.

(No, I do not advocate violating copyrights. I advocate voiding unreasonable
copyrights.)

>first software copyright suit brought against a higher education institution.
>The federal suit was filed against the school in February 1990 on behalf of 
>several software vendors, including Lotus Development Corp., Microsoft Corp.
>and Wordperfect Corp.  The suit aleged that the centre employees made 
>unauthorized copies of the software companies programs and training manuals."

orville

--------------------------------------           ******************************
Orville R. Weyrich, Jr.                           Weyrich Computer Consulting
Certified Data Processor                         POB 5782, Scottsdale, AZ 85261
Certified Systems Professional                        Voice: (602) 391-0821
Internet: orville%weyrich@tnet.com                    Fax:   (602) 661-0660
Internet: orville%weyrich@uunet.uu.net                  Yes! I'm Available
--------------------------------------           ******************************
From: rwk@crl.dec.com (Bob Kerns)
Newsgroups: misc.legal.computing
Subject: Re: ATTENTION: All people who received a crack for Alchemy!!!
Date: 9 Apr 92 14:01:23 GMT
	<1992Apr2.012334.7549@ccu1.aukuni.ac.nz>
	<1992Apr3.161146.13397@cbfsb.cb.att.com>
	<1992Apr4.041843.20449@uwasa.fi>
	<1992Apr7.191654.29459@b15.b15.ingr.com>
	<gthomas.702775828@chilko.ucs.ubc.ca>
Organization: Cambridge Research Lab, Digital Equipment Corp.

In article <gthomas.702775828@chilko.ucs.ubc.ca> gthomas@unixg.ubc.ca (Guy R Thomas) writes:

   From: gthomas@unixg.ubc.ca (Guy R Thomas)
   Date: 8 Apr 92 23:30:28 GMT
   ... The suit aleged that the centre employees made 
   unauthorized copies of the software companies programs and training manuals."

   -Ledger,  Association of College and University Auditors, Nov. 1991

   This may go some of the way towards disabusing people, in particular the 
   esteemed Law professor whose identity was so graciously protected in the
   past life of this thread, of the notion that 'shrink wrap' liscences are
   unenforcible.

I don't see anything here that relates to whether shrink-wrap licenses
are enforcible.  All this relates to is that COPYRIGHTS are enforcable.
We already knew that.  The open question is whether additional terms can
be imposed, or if the implied contract that is part of a sale of a software
package can be limited, by a license "agreement".  For example, what
about terms to not reverse-engineer?  Not to resell?

You don't need a shrink-wrap license at all to have copyright protection.
Newsgroups: misc.legal.computing
From: gthomas@unixg.ubc.ca (Guy R Thomas)
Subject: Re: ATTENTION: All people who received a crack for Alchemy!!!
Organization: University of British Columbia, Vancouver, B.C., Canada
Date: Thu, 9 Apr 1992 22:32:36 GMT

In  rwk@crl.dec.com (Bob Kerns) writes:

>In article <gthomas.702775828@chilko.ucs.ubc.ca> gthomas@unixg.ubc.ca (Guy R Thomas) writes:

>   From: gthomas@unixg.ubc.ca (Guy R Thomas)
>   Date: 8 Apr 92 23:30:28 GMT
>   ... The suit aleged that the centre employees made 
>   unauthorized copies of the software companies programs and training manuals."

>   -Ledger,  Association of College and University Auditors, Nov. 1991

>   This may go some of the way towards disabusing people, in particular the 
>   esteemed Law professor whose identity was so graciously protected in the
>   past life of this thread, of the notion that 'shrink wrap' liscences are
>   unenforcible.

>I don't see anything here that relates to whether shrink-wrap licenses
>are enforcible.  All this relates to is that COPYRIGHTS are enforcable.
>We already knew that.  The open question is whether additional terms can
>be imposed, or if the implied contract that is part of a sale of a software
>package can be limited, by a license "agreement".  For example, what
>about terms to not reverse-engineer?  Not to resell?

>You don't need a shrink-wrap license at all to have copyright protection.

My reading was that such terms indeed fall under copyright restrictions
as applied to software.  It makes no sense to reverse engineer a book
so it is irelevant to print published material.

Guy
gthomas@unixg.ubc.ca
From: jrbd@craycos.com (James Davies)
Newsgroups: misc.legal.computing
Subject: Re: ATTENTION: All people who received a crack for Alchemy!!!
Date: 9 Apr 92 16:08:09 GMT
Organization: Cray Computer Corporation

In article <gthomas.702775828@chilko.ucs.ubc.ca> gthomas@unixg.ubc.ca (Guy R Thomas) writes:
>"The University of Oregon Continuation Centre settled a copyright lawsuit with
>the Software Publishers Association *to pay $130,000* as well as organize and
>host a national conference on copyright law and software use. This was the
>first software copyright suit brought against a higher education institution.
>The federal suit was filed against the school in February 1990 on behalf of 
>several software vendors, including Lotus Development Corp., Microsoft Corp.
>and Wordperfect Corp.  The suit aleged that the centre employees made 
>unauthorized copies of the software companies programs and training manuals."
>
>-Ledger,  Association of College and University Auditors, Nov. 1991
>
>This may go some of the way towards disabusing people, in particular the 
>esteemed Law professor whose identity was so graciously protected in the
>past life of this thread, of the notion that 'shrink wrap' liscences are
>unenforcible.

No, it's not really relevant.  The copyright is valid whether or not the
license is valid.  What they were guilty of was a copyright violation.
Newsgroups: misc.legal.computing
From: gthomas@unixg.ubc.ca (Guy R Thomas)
Subject: Re: ATTENTION: All people who received a crack for Alchemy!!!
Organization: University of British Columbia, Vancouver, B.C., Canada
Date: Wed, 8 Apr 1992 23:30:28 GMT

"The University of Oregon Continuation Centre settled a copyright lawsuit with
the Software Publishers Association *to pay $130,000* as well as organize and
host a national conference on copyright law and software use. This was the
first software copyright suit brought against a higher education institution.
The federal suit was filed against the school in February 1990 on behalf of 
several software vendors, including Lotus Development Corp., Microsoft Corp.
and Wordperfect Corp.  The suit aleged that the centre employees made 
unauthorized copies of the software companies programs and training manuals."

-Ledger,  Association of College and University Auditors, Nov. 1991

This may go some of the way towards disabusing people, in particular the 
esteemed Law professor whose identity was so graciously protected in the
past life of this thread, of the notion that 'shrink wrap' liscences are
unenforcible.

guy
gthomas@unixg.ubc.ca

 
Newsgroups: misc.legal.computing
From: barr@tramp.Colorado.EDU (BARR DOUG)
Subject: Re: Intellectual Property - Your employer's position?
Organization: U
Date: Tue, 14 Apr 1992 17:03:22 GMT

In article <1992Apr09.033203.24051@ecst.csuchico.edu> bsmith@ecst.csuchico.edu (Charles Bennett Smith) writes:
>
>Greetings.  I have just had a copy of a legal document called an
>"ASSIGNMENT OF RIGHTS" handed to me by my boss.  The company is
>a software and hardware consulting company, and they want to 
>own the rights to all work we have done (past, present, and future)
>for the company.
>
>Does anyone have any experience with this sort of a document?  Please
>share your experiences here in misc.legal.computing.
>
My position on this is:
I could agree that the company has first rights to the ideas that I come
up with while they are paying my salary. 
This does not include everything that I think of now, nor anything that I
think of after I leave the company.
Of course determining the exact time that an idea was hatched could be 
difficult in actuality.
It is not unusual for a company to ask it's development people to sign such
an agreement.
By the way, if you have an idea and want it to go to market, take it to your
employer and if he turns it down, then you should be free to market on your
own (a la Wozniak). If your employer takes you up on the idea then you should
be rewarded by being given a leadership role in its development and hopefully
a raise.
This whole business can get into a chicken match. I know of companies that
got their start by literally stealing the engineers and the ideas from a 
company and starting a new company, and in many cases the company stolen from
decided NOT to take legal action. In some cases the company decided not to
for a reason (rather than just oversight, or laziness). 
So much of monetary success depends on more than a clever idea, it also
depends on skillful manangement and marketing etc.

I think that most all engineers have dreams of inventing something new.
This certainly should be encouraged.



Newsgroups: misc.legal.computing
From: slagle@lmsc.lockheed.com (Mark Slagle)
Subject: Re: Email Privacy?
Reply-To: slagle@lmsc.lockheed.com
In-reply-to: venu@cirrus.com's message of 13 Apr 92 23:57:51 GMT
Organization: Lockheed Missiles and Space Co., Sunnyvale, Ca.
	<1992Apr10.201938.4498@porthos.cc.bellcore.com>
	<1992Apr13.163605.1779@cirrus.com>
	<1992Apr13.194759.28954@porthos.cc.bellcore.com>
	<1992Apr13.235751.7099@cirrus.com>
Date: Wed, 15 Apr 92 05:08:23 GMT

In article <1992Apr13.235751.7099@cirrus.com> venu@cirrus.com (Venu Nayar) writes:
   Yes, but what is the law as it affects personal letters. Can they be made
   public by the receiver?

----
I don't see that there is any significant difference here
between email and hard copy mail.  If you send me a letter
and I post it on a public bulletin board, then you can sue
me in an attempt to recover damages.  Same with email.  It
seems to me that in both cases, it is more a matter of
manners than law anyway.  It is bad manners to reveal the
contents of private communications without first obtaining
the author's permission.  If doing so damages the author in
some way, then I would assume that such damages could be
redressed by litigation.

--
----
Mark E. Slagle                                 PO Box 61059
slagle@lmsc.lockheed.com                       Sunnyvale, CA   94088
408-756-0895                                   USA
From: venu@cirrus.com (Venu Nayar)
Newsgroups: misc.legal.computing
Subject: Email Privacy?
Keywords: email, posting on the net, copy-right
Date: 10 Apr 92 16:11:10 GMT
Organization: Cirrus Logic Inc.

I have been recently seeing a lot of private email being reproduced on the
net verbatim. While this may or may not be ethically correct, it gives rise
to the following questions.

	Is there any legality against doing this?  

	Is there any legal enforcement against public disclosure of postal
	mail which could also be applicable to email?  

	Is the copyright law applicable here?

Please follow-up to the net or email to me. I'll post a summary if there is
enough response.

-- 
Venu Nayar			|		Internet: venu@cirrus.com
Cirrus Logic Inc.		|		(415)-226-2100 X3737
I don't have to take this abuse from you -- I've got hundreds of
people waiting to abuse me.
Newsgroups: misc.legal.computing
From: kudzu@tfs.com (Michael Sierchio)
Subject: Re: intellectual property
Organization: TRW Financial Systems
Distribution: misc
Date: Tue, 14 Apr 1992 21:02:03 GMT

>hilary.miller@execnet.com (hilary miller) writes:
>
>>               This is a standard request that technology-related
>>               businesses universally make of their employees: if
>>               you invent it while employed by them, it belongs
>>               to them.  They paid for it; it's theirs.  Usually
>>               they are accompanied by confidentiality and non-
>>               competition agreements (or all are contained in a
>>               single form).  It is customary for employees to
>>               sign such documents, unless they have a LOT of
>>               leverage and can negotiate a special deal.  They
>>               are generally enforceable.

Non competition clauses are rarely enforceable, unless a party is a
principal or officer in the business and some consideration (money) is
paid for it.  In any case, they can't keep you from practicing your
profession, period.

An invention while in the employ of a company, if it is unrelated to
the activities of the business and is done using the employee's own
time and resources can in no way belong to the employer. Not in
California, anyway.

Non-disclosure agreements are binding under trade secret law, but it
is in practice difficult to get injunctive relief.  Ya gotta prove
damages.

-- 
Michael Sierchio                               TRW Financial Systems
kudzu@tfs.com                                     1947 Center Street
                                             Berkeley, CA 94704-1105
(MKS2)                                                  510.704.3380
From: venu@cirrus.com (Venu Nayar)
Newsgroups: misc.legal.computing
Subject: Re: Email Privacy?
Keywords: email, posting on the net, copy-right
Date: 13 Apr 92 23:57:51 GMT
Organization: Cirrus Logic Inc.

In <1992Apr13.194759.28954@porthos.cc.bellcore.com> whs70@dancer.uucp
(24411-sohl) writes: 
>In article <1992Apr13.163605.1779@cirrus.com> venu@cirrus.com (Venu Nayar) writes:
>>In <1992Apr10.201938.4498@porthos.cc.bellcore.com> whs70@dancer.uucp
>>(24411-sohl) writes: 
>>
>>>Second question - In what way is the "private email" being posted?
>>>  As a responce that is copied to a newsgroup?  As a reply to a list
>>>  of other email users?
>>
>>Posting it on a newsgroup in its entirity...along with email headers.

>From my perspective, anything posted to a newsgroup is NOT "private."
>As such, you must expect that the possibility exists that a
>superior or peer in your company may see something you post.  As
>such, I don't see any "privacy" issue involved.  

No, I mean that the email has been sent as personal mail between two
persons, and has been mad public by being posted by the receiver by posting
it in its entirity (with mail headers) on the net. Sorry for the confusion. 

>Direct email between two individuals, on the other hand, would seem
>to warrant a treatment similar to any personal letter situation.

Yes, but what is the law as it affects personal letters. Can they be made
public by the receiver?
-- 
Venu Nayar			|		Internet: venu@cirrus.com
Cirrus Logic Inc.		|		(510)-226-2100 X3737
Yield to Temptation ... it may not pass your way again.
Newsgroups: misc.legal.computing
From: bsmith@ecst.csuchico.edu (Charles Bennett Smith)
Subject: Intellectual Property - Your employer's position?
Organization: California State University, Chico
Date: Thu, 09 Apr 1992 03:32:03 GMT


Greetings.  I have just had a copy of a legal document called an
"ASSIGNMENT OF RIGHTS" handed to me by my boss.  The company is
a software and hardware consulting company, and they want to 
own the rights to all work we have done (past, present, and future)
for the company.

Now, I don't really have a problem with them Copyrighting the 
products which I worked on while under their employment.  What I am
worried about are the following:

	1.  They intend to attempt to Patent the product as a unique
	    invention.  By signing over my rights, they will own the
	    patent and be able to exploite it to their financial gains.
	    If I don't sign, they can't patent (unless it is in my
	    name) right?

	2.  What will come of any other "ideas" which I have thought about
	    during the past three years.  I have many ideas which the
	    company is not currently interested in, which I have formulated
	    on my own.  Will they own these also?

Another thing to mention.  This is a relativly small company and for
the past three years there has never once been any mention of legal
documents and the like.  There was not even a formal document outlining
just what the product was to be.  I don't see any way to prove what
is a part of the product and what is an independent idea.

Also, there is not a formal employment agreement which states anything 
about non-disclosure or anything like that.


Does anyone have any experience with this sort of a document?  Please
share your experiences here in misc.legal.computing.

-- Bennett
-- 

Lassen Research                                   Bennett Smith
300 Salem Street                                  bsmith@ecst.csuchico.edu
Chico California  95928                           (916) 343-6421
From: mats@netcom.com (Mats Wichmann)
Newsgroups: misc.legal.computing
Subject: Re: Intellectual Property - Your employer's position?
Date: 14 Apr 92 19:46:24 GMT
Organization: Netcom - Online Communication Services  (408 241-9760 guest)

barr@tramp.Colorado.EDU (BARR DOUG) writes:

>By the way, if you have an idea and want it to go to market, take it to your
>employer and if he turns it down, then you should be free to market on your
>own (a la Wozniak). If your employer takes you up on the idea then you should
>be rewarded by being given a leadership role in its development and hopefully
>a raise.

This often turns out not to be true - I've spoken with a couple of people
who had ideas the company refused to develop, but also refused to release
for anyone else to possibly make money off of.
-- 
Mats Wichmann
Systems Software Consultant
alruna!mats@ossi.com (or mats@netcom.com)
Newsgroups: misc.legal.computing
From: whs70@dancer.uucp (24411-sohl)
Subject: Re: Email Privacy?
Reply-To: whs70@dancer.UUCP ()
Organization: Bellcore, Livingston, NJ
Date: Mon, 13 Apr 92 19:47:59 GMT
Keywords: email, posting on the net, copy-right

In article <1992Apr13.163605.1779@cirrus.com> venu@cirrus.com (Venu Nayar) writes:
>In <1992Apr10.201938.4498@porthos.cc.bellcore.com> whs70@dancer.uucp
>(24411-sohl) writes: 
>
>>First question - How are you defining "private email."
>
>Any email which I send to a person which is not connected with business
>matters (like a private letter).
>
>>Second question - In what way is the "private email" being posted?
>>  As a responce that is copied to a newsgroup?  As a reply to a list
>>  of other email users?
>
>Posting it on a newsgroup in its entirity...along with email headers.

From my perspective, anything posted to a newsgroup is NOT "private."
As such, you must expect that the possibility exists that a
superior or peer in your company may see something you post.  As
such, I don't see any "privacy" issue involved.  

Direct email between two individuals, on the other hand, would seem
to warrant a treatment similar to any personal letter situation.

Thast's my short and sweet opinion.  Any others care to add comments.

Standard Disclaimer- Any opinions, etc. are mine and NOT my employer's.
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Bill Sohl (K2UNK) BELLCORE (Bell Communications Research, Inc.)
Morristown, NJ             email via UUCP      bcr!dancer!whs70
201-829-2879 Weekdays      email via Internet  whs70@dancer.cc.bellcore.com
From: whs70@dancer.uucp (24411-sohl)
Newsgroups: misc.legal.computing
Subject: Re: Email Privacy?
Keywords: email, posting on the net, copy-right
Date: 10 Apr 92 20:19:38 GMT
Reply-To: whs70@dancer.UUCP ()
Organization: Bellcore, Livingston, NJ

In article <1992Apr10.161110.11150@cirrus.com> venu@cirrus.com (Venu Nayar) writes:
>I have been recently seeing a lot of private email being reproduced on the
>net verbatim. While this may or may not be ethically correct, it gives rise
>to the following questions.

First question - How are you defining "private email."

Second question - In what way is the "private email" being posted?
  As a responce that is copied to a newsgroup?  As a reply to a list
  of other email users?

Standard Disclaimer- Any opinions, etc. are mine and NOT my employer's.
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Bill Sohl (K2UNK) BELLCORE (Bell Communications Research, Inc.)
Morristown, NJ             email via UUCP      bcr!dancer!whs70
201-829-2879 Weekdays      email via Internet  whs70@dancer.cc.bellcore.com
Newsgroups: misc.legal.computing
From: whs70@dancer.uucp (24411-sohl)
Subject: Re: ATTENTION: All people who received a crack for Alchemy!!!
Reply-To: whs70@dancer.UUCP ()
Organization: Bellcore, Livingston, NJ
Date: Thu, 9 Apr 92 13:30:23 GMT

In article <gthomas.702775828@chilko.ucs.ubc.ca> gthomas@unixg.ubc.ca (Guy R Thomas) writes:
>"The University of Oregon Continuation Centre settled a copyright lawsuit with
>the Software Publishers Association *to pay $130,000* as well as organize and
>host a national conference on copyright law and software use. This was the
>first software copyright suit brought against a higher education institution.
>The federal suit was filed against the school in February 1990 on behalf of 
>several software vendors, including Lotus Development Corp., Microsoft Corp.
>and Wordperfect Corp.  The suit aleged that the centre employees made 
>unauthorized copies of the software and manuals.
>-Ledger,  Association of College and University Auditors, Nov. 1991
>
>This may go some of the way towards disabusing people, in particular the 
>esteemed Law professor whose identity was so graciously protected in the
>past life of this thread, of the notion that 'shrink wrap' liscences are
>unenforcible.

Without any additional info, it seems this suit had little or
nothing to do with "shrinkwrap" liscences.  The suit seems to
have been based totally on the applicable copyright laws.  If there's
anything in the "record" to indicate otherwise, please post the details.

Standard Disclaimer- Any opinions, etc. are mine and NOT my employer's.
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Bill Sohl (K2UNK) BELLCORE (Bell Communications Research, Inc.)
Morristown, NJ             email via UUCP      bcr!dancer!whs70
201-829-2879 Weekdays      email via Internet  whs70@dancer.cc.bellcore.com
Newsgroups: misc.legal.computing