HDTenEightyP/NetNews huggingface dataset:
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 01:21:59 GMT

In article <1992Oct1.073106.233@nntp.hut.fi> Jyrki Kuoppala writes:

>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?

In my opinion, the answer is yes. But then, I have worked only for
government contractors, purveyors of death (and the Apollo program.)
I assure you, the response from the standpoint of the work I did in
those days is that it was evil. Those of us so involved were well
intentioned. Makes little difference in the outcome.

I will be looking for a copy of Bruce's book this weekend and intend
to comment in hardcopy (perhaps here as well) on the book. So far
as his column is concerned, it is entertaining and does a nice job of
opening several sequential thought processes and raising the alarm in
a few instances.

How would it be if "Bohemian" were replaced by some other identifiable 
ethnic or cultural entity? The concepts are made more disturbing by invoking
a "dirty clothing" image and coupling Haval to the concepts of honesty. Was
there no honesty elsewhere in government? And just what image is produced
in a Central European by the concept of "free election" especially when
compared to the same ideal espoused by an American?

And if "whole nations have collapsed in a slough of corruption," then
what has saved the United States? Collapse in the old Eastern Block was
based more in the general failure of socialism and central planning in
large models than in abject corruption.

The article is saved simply by Sterling's disclaimer that he writes from 
the perspective of a "science fiction writer." As an entertainment piece,
it is admirable. Those who take the thoughts of someone who has spent
many years writing and planning highly believable and stylized fictions
for a living to be an information resource cannot be saved from themselves
regardless of disclaimers.

Nicely written, but a tad too better-than-thou-ish for my taste. Today's 
'ugly American' travels in ascii instead of in person.

Bill Vajk

Newsgroups: comp.org.eff.talk,comp.admin.policy,alt.censorship,alt.comp.acad-freedom.talk,alt.society.civil-liberty,alt.politics.usa.constitution
From: jkp@cs.HUT.FI (Jyrki Kuoppala)
Subject: Re: Supreme Court and U.S. Constitution (was Re: Banned Computer Material 1992)
Reply-To: jkp@cs.HUT.FI (Jyrki Kuoppala)
Organization: Helsinki University of Technology, Finland
Date: Tue, 6 Oct 1992 23:06:16 GMT

In article <1992Oct5.203001.29827@eff.org>, mnemonic@eff (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.

This is probably the (or a) relevant quote?

"     [2] In all Cases affecting Ambassadors, other public Ministers
and Consuls, and those in which a State shall be a Party, the supreme
Court shall have original Jurisdiction. In all the other Cases before
mentioned, the supreme Court shall have appellate Jurisdiction, both
as to Law and Fact, with such Exceptions, and under such Regulations
as the Congress shall make."

>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.

OK, I probably wasn't very clear with the idea (in my head or in my
writing).  How about the issue of a jury or a government employee
interpreting the Constitution?  This is where it is important what the
Constitution means?  As an example, when in

"     [3] The Senators and Representatives before mentioned, and the
Members of the several State Legislatures, and all executive and
judicial Officers, both of the United States and of the several
States, shall be bound by Oath or Affirmation, to support this
Constitution; but no religious Test shall ever be required as a
Qualification to any Office or public Trust under the United States."

the Constitution is mentioned, does this mean "Constitution as
interpreted by the Supreme Court" or "Constitution as interpreted by
each person having sworn the oath"?  What is the answer in US
Constitutional Law tradition, and in opinions of Mike or anyone else?

Sorry if this is old hat to everyone else.

//Jyrki
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 04:22:03 GMT

In article <Bv9zH4.8qJ@ibmpcug.co.uk> gtoal@ibmpcug.co.uk (Graham Toal) writes:
>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? 
>
>Well, if the image is 1) of a child, but with simulated nudity - then
>there are possible civil offences which that child or its parents
>could sue for over use of the image.

This has already been addressed in a previous posting: I referred to the
relevant "invasion of privacy" torts.

>; if the image 2) includes a
>photo-montage face of several different people, then either it makes
>such an action harder or it lays open the possibility of a class action,

If it's a photo montage, it's not "completely computer-generated," is it?
There is zero possibility of a successful tort action if the image in
question is not clearly identifiable as one or more real people.

>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?

Under federal law, as I have previously stated, this would not be illegal.
As I have said before in this thread, federal law includes the sexual use
of an actual child as an element of the offense.


--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,misc.int-property,alt.suit.att-bsdi,comp.unix.bsd
From: mcgregor@netcom.com (Scott Mcgregor)
Subject: Re: Patents:  What they are.  What they aren't.  Other factors.
Organization: Netcom - Online Communication Services (408 241-9760 guest)
Distribution: usa
Date: Tue, 6 Oct 1992 07:23:27 GMT

In article <1992Oct3.194450.21064@cronkite.ocis.temple.edu> lafollet@astro.ocis.temple.edu (Paul Lafollette) writes:

>If that one line of code could infringe on a patent which, however
>erroneously given is still valid until a court says otherwise, how
>can we be sure that every other line of code doesn't infringe on
>some patent unknown to us.  It is exactly like having to patent search every
>nut, bolt, washer, wire, shim, grease and whatnot.

Yes. And even aircraft manufacturers do not run a search on that
factorial set. You can never be sure in business in many respects.
Business is not a good carreer for people who require certainty. Still
businessmen are not insensitive to risk.  Therefore liability
insurance exists and is used, and business people form clearinghouses,
pools and circles to reduce risks and costs of accidental
infringement. It does not matter whether you manufacture your primary
components or buy them, because the risk could be in their combination
or even in some set of steps (a process) that you give them to
implement.  This is equally true of aircraft and software.
-- 

Scott L. McGregor		mcgregor@netcom.com
President			tel: 408-985-1824
Prescient Software, Inc.	fax: 408-985-1936
3494 Yuba Avenue
San Jose, CA 95117
From: zimmer@gw.wmich.edu
Newsgroups: comp.org.eff.talk
Subject: Baader
Date: 6 Oct 92 09:26:13 EST
Organization: Western Michigan University

Regarding the "Baader" thread, I thought it might have something to do
with the Baader-Meinhof gang which terrorized Germany (maybe other parts
of Europe) in 70's, if I remember correctly.  Looks like that was not
the case.

W  WWW   WWW  MM   MMM   UU  UUU  U      Roy Zimmer
W  WW    WW  MM    MM    UU  UUU  U      zimmer@gw.wmich.edu
W  W  W  W  MM  M  M  M  UU  UUU  U      University Computing Services
W    WW    MM  MM    MM  UUU     UU      Western Michigan University
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,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 20:48:14 GMT
Organization: IR

In article <1992Oct1.093213.11147@netcom.com> mcgregor@netcom.com (Scott Mcgregor) writes:
> This is the crux of our whole semantic arguing isn't.

No, Scott, it's a ridiculous side issue.

> At the same time, the patent law has always
> explicitly allowed "process" patents but forbidden "algorithm"
> patents.

No. The courts define a ``mathematical algorithm'' as a procedure for
solving a mathematical problem. An ``algorithm'' is, in general,
patentable, because ``algorithm'' is synonymous with ``process'' in the
patent world. A ``mathematical algorithm'' is not patentable.

---Dan
Xref: sparky comp.org.eff.talk:6052 misc.int-property:1068 alt.suit.att-bsdi:390 comp.unix.bsd:6582
From: rlk@underprize.think.com (Robert Krawitz)
Newsgroups: comp.org.eff.talk,misc.int-property,alt.suit.att-bsdi
Subject: Re: Patents:  What they are.  What they aren't.  Other factors.
Date: 29 Sep 92 10:29:21
Organization: Thinking Machines Corporation, Cambridge Mass., USA
Distribution: usa
	<RLK.92Sep28183832@underprize.think.com>
	<1992Sep28.234246.10011@pony.Ingres.COM>
NNTP-Posting-Host: underprize.think.com
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:

   Robert Krawitz asks:

   > Why is intellectual "property" worthy of such
   > greater protection than common property?

   How many books would you have read had there been no
   profit motive for a publisher?

   How many drugs would you have benefited from had the
   pharmaceutical manufacturer been unable to amortize
   costs of R&D, lab tests, clinical trials, and scale-up?

   Would the network we are now using exist had there been
   no profit in engineering certain critical parts of it?

I really don't know, but it would be interesting to find out what would
happen without such "protection".

   > How does this infringe upon the right of the patent holder
   > to use her widget?

   It doesn't.  If she fails to patent it and someone else
   patents it, however, she may find she still has the right
   to use her widget but has lost the right to sell it.

In that case, how can I invent something and put it in the public domain
without claiming rights to it (which I'm ethically opposed to doing)?
--
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: mcgregor@netcom.com (Scott Mcgregor)
Subject: Re: Patents: What they are. What they aren't. Other factors.
Organization: Netcom - Online Communication Services (408 241-9760 guest)
Distribution: usa
Date: Sat, 3 Oct 1992 05:32:10 GMT

In article <mellon.717967374@pepper> mellon@ncd.com (Ted Lemon) writes:

>
>Hunh?   The only reason public key encryption is not currently in wide use
>is *because* of the RSA patent, whose claims are so general and so vigourously

Overstated.  Certainly not the "only" reason.  I know a number of
manufacturers who have licensed or agreed to licens the RSA stuff,
only to withdraw their planned products when they couldn't ship the
same product both inside the U.S. and outside, due to ITAR export
restrictions on encryption (a "munition" from the US government
standpoint, and hence restricted under arms trading regulations).
This has limited companies even from shipping software (such as e-mail
systems) encryption systems even if they used PRIVATE keys.  The
limited number of such non-patented PRIVATE key systems in use as
alternatives suggests that some substantial contributory reason is
something other than the patent (which RSA does license widely).






-- 

Scott L. McGregor		mcgregor@netcom.com
President			tel: 408-985-1824
Prescient Software, Inc.	fax: 408-985-1936
3494 Yuba Avenue
San Jose, CA 95117


Newsgroups: comp.org.eff.talk,comp.unix.bsd,comp.os.mach,misc.int-property,alt.suit.att-bsdi,comp.sys.mac.advocacy
From: reinitz-john@CS.YALE.EDU (John Reinitz)
Subject: Re: Letter asking for help with Apple from the US VP
Summary: The Class of people who benefit from patent law defend it. 
Organization: Yale University Theoretical Biology Collective
Distribution: usa
Date: Wed, 30 Sep 1992 16:00:15 GMT

In article <1992Sep30.131009.2798@rwwa.COM> witr@rwwa.com writes:
>In article <1992Sep29.164849.2966@cs.yale.edu>,
>  reinitz-john@CS.YALE.EDU (John Reinitz) writes:
>
>Him> Since it's so simple, perhaps you'd volunteer to do the patent search
>Him> for us? If you won't volunteer, why not?
>
>Me> I'd be glad to volunteer, in consideration for the appropriate fee (i.e.,
>Me> my normal consulting rate, plus expenses).  Time is money... ;-)
>
>You> Thank you, Mr. Withrow, *your* interests in this matter are
>You> becoming clearer.
>
>You mean to say that because I know how to research patents I am required
>to do so for every Joe who comes along, gratis?  And my unwillingness
>to do so is a sign of some sort of character flaw?

Not in the least. You are rationally acting in your own interest, and I 
have no objection to that. Indeed, if my phrasing was too sharp,  
please excuse me for seeming to impugn your character. 

Since this discussion is [in part] about whether certain aspects of 
patent law benefit *society*, I was impugning your *credibility* on
that subject. Mr. Bernstein has shown how patent law has kept innovations 
out of the hands of the public. Mr. Shein and others have noted
that determining the presence of patentable ideas in a large piece
of code is intellectually nontrivial, and requires the employment
of specialists. You appear to be one such, and hence I speculate
that certain aspects of patent law are harmful to society in general 
and beneficial to you personally.

>Why don't you tell us some things you know how to do, so we can schedule
>you to come by and do them for us, for free, OK?  Do you know how to use
>a broom?

No, sorry, I've been told I'm not very good with a broom. I know how
to solve fundamental problems in developmental genetics by formulating
dynamical models, writing numerical codes, and performing basic operations
on a benchtop with flies (D. melanogaster), rabbit sera, and purified
DNA.  I also have some experience in phage and bacterial genetics, as
well as abstract algebra and electrophysiology.

I prefer to do this work for a salary, but I've done it for two years
with *no* pay whatsoever, because *I* find it interesting. My work is freely
distributed through the usual channels for disseminating scientific 
information.

>-- 
> 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

John Reinitz

Newsgroups: comp.org.eff.talk
From: gtoal@ibmpcug.co.uk (Graham Toal)
Newsgroups: comp.org.eff.talk
Subject: Re: FBI digital telephony bill?  (Tapping BBSes)
Date: 29 Sep 92 10:13:49 GMT
Organization: The IBM PC User Group, UK.

In article <CKD.92Sep28215511@loiosh.eff.org> ckd@eff.org (Christopher Davis) writes:
>This means your Ethernet, if you're connected to the Internet.  This
>arguably means your Ethernet if you have any dial-in lines to any device
>on it (do you really want to trust that they'll decide that it won't?).

Jeez, that's scary.  I'm glad I live in MOE.  (not that we're any more
of a democracy, but at least we don't have to do our Govt's spying
for them - this is reminiscent of the old Russia at its worst)

Good luck on fighting this, guys.  I really think this bit about
applicability to BBSes and the nets should be more widely publicised...

G
-- 
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: Letter asking for help with Apple from the US VP
Reply-To: witr@rwwa.com
Organization: R.W. Withrow Associates
Distribution: usa
Date: Mon, 28 Sep 1992 18:38:13 GMT

In article <BZS.92Sep26231245@ussr.std.com>,
  bzs@ussr.std.com (Barry Shein) writes:

| I do not know if there exists any software which should be patentable.

In this, you and I are in complete agreement!

| To my knowledge what has been patented have been algorithms, not
| software. [...] The patent laws currently do not allow the patenting
| of what are described as ``natural laws''.

In fact the prohibition against ``natural law'' patents is what was, for
so long, used to prohibit all ``software'' patents.  What changed this
(I think:  This gets to the periphery of my knowelege) was two cases
(Diamond v. Bradley and Diamond v. Diehr, 1981) where the supreme court decided
that one could not patent a formula, but one *could* patent a device which
contained a computer system that used that formula.  This seems to be
consistent with so-called ``synergism'' patents: patents which claim 
combinations of old elements used in a new way.  This was a 5-4 decision,
BTW.

Does anyone know of more recent supreme court cases that affect this
either way?

-- 
 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:6079 misc.int-property:1080 comp.unix.bsd:6630 alt.suit.att-bsdi:401
From: barmar@think.com (Barry Margolin)
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: 30 Sep 1992 22:41:12 GMT
Organization: Thinking Machines Corporation, Cambridge MA, USA
Distribution: usa
NNTP-Posting-Host: telecaster.think.com

In article <WCS.92Sep29233331@budweiser.ATT.COM> wcs@anchor.ho.att.com (Bill Stewart +1-908-949-0705) writes:
>In article <1992Sep28.231823.8385@pony.Ingres.COM> jpk@Ingres.COM (Jon Krueger) writes:
>	   The Congress shall have the power...to promote the progress
>	   of science and useful arts, by securing for limited times
>	   to authors and inventors the exclusive right to their
>	   respective writings and discoveries.
>   U.S. Constitution, Article I, section 8

>With others, such as XOR cursors and LZW compression,
>the patenters discovered it, and other people also discovered it,
>and the patent-holders not only acquire exclusive rights to 
>their *own* discoveries, but also to the similar discoveries of the
>*other* independent inventors - who should have had the right to use them.

The problem is that it's hard to have it both ways.  "Exclusive right"
means that only one person has control of the invention.  If someone else
can have the right to use the invention without my permission, then it's
not exclusive, is it?

Patent law tries to balance this by requiring that something be novel and
unobvious in order for it to be patentable.  That way patents shouldn't
unnecessarily restrict things that get reinvented many times; they should
only cover real "inventions".  This is part of the problem in the software
patent area -- patent officers haven't been trained well enough in software
to distinguish trivial stuff from real inventions (I think most people
would classify XOR cursors as trivial, but LZW as a real invention).


-- 
Barry Margolin
System Manager, Thinking Machines Corp.

barmar@think.com          {uunet,harvard}!think!barmar
Newsgroups: comp.org.eff.talk,misc.int-property,alt.suit.att-bsdi,comp.unix.bsd
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: Tue, 6 Oct 1992 22:50:36 GMT

In article <1992Oct5.202434.29587@eff.org>, mnemonic@eff (Mike Godwin) writes:
>>I was talking more about your comments to Brad Hicks.
>
>Is there any particular reason you never comment about Brad Hicks's
>references to me? 

See my other posting, with "Bruce Sterling" in the topic field.

//Jyrki
From: barmar@think.com (Barry Margolin)
Newsgroups: comp.org.eff.talk
Subject: Re: Do our taxes pay for Internet?
Date: 30 Sep 1992 23:34:16 GMT
Organization: Thinking Machines Corporation, Cambridge MA, USA
Distribution: inet
NNTP-Posting-Host: telecaster.think.com

In article <9209301409.AA07044@lfkw1.bgm.link.com> u6a44@lfkw1.bgm.link.com (Michael Lurie) writes:
>The article states that Internet is "now funded by the
>National Science Foundation", which means of course, funded by you and
>I.

The NSF funds the NSFNet, which is one (admittedly large) component of the
Internet.  The Internet itself is a conglomeration of dozens of
independent, interconnected networks.  Some of these networks are funded by
the government either directly (as in the NSFnet and MILNET) or indirectly
(some are run by consortia of government-owned or -subsidized educational
institutions), while others are purely commercial.  There are very few
general statements which may be made about the Internet as a whole.

-- 
Barry Margolin
System Manager, Thinking Machines Corp.

barmar@think.com          {uunet,harvard}!think!barmar
Newsgroups: comp.org.eff.talk,misc.int-property,alt.suit.att-bsdi,comp.unix.bsd
From: phardie@nastar.uucp (Pete Hardie)
Newsgroups: comp.org.eff.talk
Subject: Re: Govt. Online
Date: 29 Sep 92 14:01:10 GMT
Organization: Digital Transmission Systems, Duluth, GA.

In article <KFOGEL.92Sep28173427@mark1.cs.oberlin.edu> kfogel@mark1.cs.oberlin.edu (Karl Fogel) writes:
>In article <34920928165843_0002737218NA2EM@mcimail.com> 0002737218@mcimail.com (David W. Batterson) writes:
>
>		    ONLINE ACCESS TO ELECTED REPRESENTATIVES
>				by David Batterson
>
>	This is a good idea, but there is one important difference
>between snail-mail and email that is being overlooked here: everyone
>has (essentially) free access to snail-mail, but only those with
>computer/net access can use email. Perhaps this development can wait
>till there are terminals in every public library linked to the
>Internet? Having email access to legislators is like saying "For all
>you people with $$$, here's a faster and easier way to reach us. The
>rest of you can use good old Prehistoric Post ... it'll get here
>eventually."

Such things already exist.  FedEx and UPS overnight parcels, for one, can
get letters to legislators faster than snailmail, and for $$.  Fax machines,
for some congressfolk, do even better.  And there is always the perennial
avenue of the rich to govt - make a big contribution and the senator will
be glad to return your call personally.

Wealth will *always* have faster access to the govt.  The trick is to ensure
that it does not have *exclusive* access.


-- 
Pete Hardie:  phardie@nastar  (voice) (404) 497-0101
Digital Transmission Systems, Inc., Duluth GA
Member, DTS Dart Team           |  cat * | egrep -v "signature virus|infection" 
Position:  Goalie               |