HDTenEightyP/NetNews huggingface dataset:
From: mnemonic@eff.org (Mike Godwin)
Subject: Re: need advice for simpl
Originator: mnemonic@eff.org
Organization: Electronic Frontier Foundation
Distribution: misc
Date: Tue, 6 Oct 1992 16:45:58 GMT

In article <1992Oct5.1297.18248@execnet> "hilary miller" <hilary.miller@execnet.com> writes:
>
>Mike Godwin, in a message to All on 10-03-92 at 8:16am, said:
>
>MG>|How about if I validly execute a holographic will in Texas, my domicile
>   |then move to NYC and die there?
>   |_______________________________________________________________________
>
>               A will that is valid under the laws of the domi-
>               cile of the testator and the time it is made is
>               valid in New York.

Actually, I knew this, Hilary. I was making the point that this is another
exception to Mark's generalization about the use of holographic wills.
Thanks for the posting, though.


--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
Newsgroups: misc.legal
From: mnemonic@eff.org (Mike Godwin)
Subject: Re: Online Legal
Originator: mnemonic@eff.org
Organization: Electronic Frontier Foundation
Date: Mon, 28 Sep 1992 17:35:23 GMT

In article <Pe0sRB4w164w@depsych.Gwinnett.COM> rc@depsych.Gwinnett.COM (Richard Carlson) writes:

>Aside from the American Bar Association's _You and the Law_, there
>aren't many books by lawyers "giving away the law" to laypersons.

This claim is false. It can easily be refuted by reference to the Subject
volumes of Books in Print, or by a short browse at the nearest B.Dalton's
or Barnes & Noble.

>So I guess it's beside the point _why_ so many people have a
>negative attitude toward lawyers.

It should be noted that most people encounter lawyers, or need lawyers, at
particular difficult and stressful periods in their lives, such as
divorce. And it is difficult for those who haven't studied law to see
any good reason for its complexity.

These two factors have much to do with the antipathy towards lawyers,
I suspect.

>Maybe it's because there are too many lawyers.

This may be true, of course, but the statistics relied on by folks
like Dan Quayle are questionable.


--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: misc.legal
From: feustel@netcom.com (David Feustel)
Subject: Re: Car Insurance: No Comprehensive => NO THEFT INSURANCE!!!
Date: Sat, 26 Sep 92 23:09:22 GMT
Organization: DAFCO: OS/2 Software Support & Consulting

dpollard@magnus.acs.ohio-state.edu (Dennis B Pollard) writes:

>I thought that it was "common knowledge" that if a person did not have 
>comprehensive coverage the person is not protected against theft.  When I was 
>looking for car insurance two years ago, it was pointed out.

>I concede, though, that my policy is broken down into liability and everything 
>else, i.e., comprehensive.

I am both embarrassed AND pleased to report that my car was not
stolen, only misplaced (by me). The policeman who took my report
cancelling the stolen car alert told me that theft insurance is
available for something like $25/yr. One way or another I will have
theft insurance reinstated by Monday night.
-- 
Dave Feustel N9MYI <feustel@netcom.com>
 
The current epidemic of violent crime in the U.S. arises not from drug
use, but as a consequence of government-sponsored oppression of
producers, distributors and consumers of popular drugs not produced by
(and hence threatening the market share of) the alcohol, tobacco or
pharmacutical industries (which industries, coincidentally, are the
largest contributors to the Bush Reelection Campaign and the biggest
underwriters of antidrug advertisements (which advertisements,
coincidentally, never mention tobacco or alcohol as dangerous drugs)).
From: edwardk@cup.portal.com (edward chungfan kwok)
Newsgroups: misc.legal
Subject: Re: The FDA can't be criminal, can they?
Date: Tue,  6 Oct 92 17:35:23 PDT
Organization: The Portal System (TM)
  <1992Oct4.153637.4560@eff.org> <1992Oct6.020257.18834@ucsu.Colorado.EDU>
  <1992Oct6.163321.16436@eff.org>

>
>>It's different, but the conclusion isn't any different: The Constitution
>>mentions nothing about such a monopoly. In practice, the Supreme Court
>>_took_ this power, and the people generally go along with it. However,
>>there is nothing legal about it.
>
>Frank, you probably should do some reading about the origin and legitimacy
>of judicial review.
>

As I remember, the U.S. Supreme Court's claim to legitimacy in saying "what
the law is" is pronounced in Marbury v. Madison by then Chief Justice John 
Marshall.  Although judicial review pre-dated Marbury in the Anglo-American
tradition, it was the first time in the U.S. a judicial opinion declared the
U.S. Supreme Court an arbiter of the "what is the law?" question.   The 
opinion was really not based on an interpretation of the constitution or
a claim of right by virtue of tradition, but rather a somewhat low-key, 
"if not us, who else?" kinda approach to that question.  So I believe Frank
is kind of right on that issue, although I wouldn't say "there is nothing
legal about it", since by the same bootstrap logic what they say is by
definition "legal."
Newsgroups: misc.legal,alt.politics.correct,soc.college
From: thf2@ellis.uchicago.edu (Citecheck Hell)
Subject: Re: the MIT anti-trust case
Reply-To: thf2@midway.uchicago.edu
Organization: University of Chicago Computing Organizations
Date: Wed, 30 Sep 1992 05:37:08 GMT

In article <1992Sep30.023619.9718@panix.com> lkk@panix.com (Larry Kolodney) writes:
>In <07cM02bT243G01@JUTS.ccc.amdahl.com> tjc50@juts.ccc.amdahl.com (Terry Carroll) writes:
>
>>Universities are clearly engaged in trade.  They're not charitable 
>>organizations.  If they are capable of sustaining higher prices only via 
>>collusion, that's illegal.
>
>Under what criteria do you distinguish a university from a charity,
>such as the Red Cross?

"MIT provides educational services to its students, for which they pay
significant sums of money.  The exchange of money for services is '"commerce"
in the most common usage of that word.'  Goldfarb [v. Virginia State
Bar, 421 US 773,] 787-88."  United States v Brown University, 1992 WL
217440, *11 (E D Pa).

>Universities are non-profit institutions (like the Red Cross).  

"It is beyond debate that nonprofit organizations can be held liable
under the antitrust laws."  American Soc'y of Mechanical Engineers, Inc.
v Hydrolevel Corp., 456 US 556, 577 (1982).

>They
>sell their "product" at or below cost (like the Red Cross sells
>blood), and subsidize their product for less fortunate customers as a
>matter of policy (like the Red Cross).  Both finance their activities
>partly out of donations, partly out of government funds, and
>partly out of user fees.

The charitable aspects of the Red Cross would not be subject to
the Sherman Act.  If they were to collude with the Red Crescent or
something to price-fix the price of blood, that would be subject to
the Sherman Act.  
-- 
           .. . . .  .  .   .    .     .     .    .   .  .  . . . ..
          ted frank | thf2@midway.uchicago.edu | standard disclaimers
         the university of chicago law school, chicago, illinois 60637
Xref: sparky misc.legal:18196 rec.arts.books:17794
From: cramer@optilink.UUCP (Clayton Cramer)
Newsgroups: misc.legal,rec.arts.books
Subject: Re: Anti-Arab racism on the net
Keywords: Equality, Fairness, Same Standards?
Date: 6 Oct 92 17:32:29 GMT
Organization: Optilink Corporation, Petaluma, CA

In article <1992Oct5.120317.16094@husc3.harvard.edu>, zeleny@husc9.harvard.edu (Michael Zeleny) writes:
> I don't recall having appointed you my spokesman, so kindly abstain from
> making sweeping claims on behalf of "Jews".  Incidentally, should the
> charming fellows in the ex-East Germany happen to come up with an updated
> edition of "Mein Kampf", I would gladly put up another $100 towards the
> goal of conclusive and irreversible reeducation of its author.
> 
> mikhail zeleny@husc.harvard.edu

Some things are better done than said.



-- 
Clayton E. Cramer {uunet,pyramid}!optilink!cramer  My opinions, all mine!
Lesson learned from Gov. Wilson's signing of AB 2601: if you don't get 
your way, have a riot.  Next time, Gov. Wilson will cower appropriately.
From: matt@smoke.brl.mil (Matthew Rosenblatt)
Newsgroups: misc.legal
Subject: Re: Farewell to misc.legal discussion (was: Re: Hate speech okay
Date: 30 Sep 92 21:32:02 GMT
Distribution: misc.legal
Organization: U.S. Army Ballistic Research Lab, APG MD.

In article <1992Sep28.212347.7269@Princeton.EDU> 
egnilges@phoenix.Princeton.EDU (Edward G. Nilges) writes:

>So long, misc.legal, and remember: there is no such thing as pure speech
>divorced from action.  While "free speech" is a valid right, the
>homeless man babbling incomprehensible gibberish in Grand Central is not
>exercising speech, for speech entails a sender and a receiver.  
>[Ed Nilges]

How does Mr. Nilges know that what he thinks is "incomprehensible
gibberish" is not in fact perfectly sensible Finnish, or for that
matter, Urdu?

					-- Matt Rosenblatt
                                        (matt@amsaa.brl.mil)

- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -
TRUTH     JUSTICE     FREEDOM     YIDDISHKEIT     IVY     THE AMERICAN WAY
Newsgroups: misc.legal
From: mwhhlaw!tim (Timothy E. Hollingsworth)
Subject: Will  Copies (was Re: need advice for simple will)
Reply-To: uunet!mwhhlaw!tim
Organization: Martin Wade Hartley & Hollingsworth
Distribution: usa
Date: Wed, 30 Sep 1992 12:41:14 GMT

In article <1992Sep30.030644.4505@cbnews.cb.att.com> ask@cbnews.cb.att.com  
(Arthur S. Kamlet) writes:
 
> Many lawyers will recommend having only one signed copy of a will.
> I am not a lawyer, but believe it's a pretty good idea to make
> several signed and witnessed copies.  In effect each is an original.
> One can go in a safe deposit box, one stored with your lawyer, one
> at home, one with a favorite relative, ...  I'm sure the lawyers
> will explain why this is bad, but it sure solves a lot of problems
> if the one original gets misplaced.

Actually, it can create problems.  One example.  You make a will leaving
everything to your spouse and sign multipul copies.  Upon your death, the copy  
at home is found with the text struck over and the word "revoked" written
in marking pen on the front in your hand.  This is usually a perfectly good way  
to revoke a will.  Under your state's law, if you die without a will, your  
spouse only gets a third of the estate.  Your spouse and your eldest child are  
on the outs.
Your estate will be substantially deminished by fees and costs in the ensuing
battle over probate of one of the copies.

--
Tim Hollingsworth
From: d88-jwa@dront.nada.kth.se (Jon Wtte)
Newsgroups: misc.legal.computing
Subject: Re: data compression patents (was: LZRW, patents, products)
Date: 29 Sep 92 17:27:52 GMT
Followup-To: misc.legal.computing
Organization: Royal Institute of Technology, Stockholm, Sweden
Originator: d88-jwa@dront.nada.kth.se

> jloup@chorus.fr (Jean-loup Gailly) writes:

   The Gibson and Graybill patent 5,049,881 applies only to lzrw1. The
   Jung patent 5,140,321 applies to lzrw3-a. (Note that Ross Williams
   discovered lzrw3-a before Jung, and that Jung applied for his patent
   two months after lzrw3-a was posted on comp.compression.)

Well, then I wouldn't be worried about using lzrw-3a. Prior art
IS prior art after all.

   If (s)he does not  include such a warning, the author of the public domain
   program can be sued for 'contributory infringement'. The holders

However, Ross lives in New Zeeland. You'd have to forcibly
kidnap him and send him to the US for the trial :-)

   Let me take this opportunity to tell you that I just discovered two
   patents on run length encoding, by Tsukiyama: 4,586,027 and 4,872,009
   granted in 1986 and 1989 respectively. The first one covers run length
   encoding in its most primitive form: a length byte followed by the

Ahem, "_PackBits," a system call for the mac (documented 1983)
does run-length encoding. I'm sure there are graphics format
standards with run-length encoding from further back.

   These patents on run length encoding are about as absurd as the patents
   on the xor cursor (4,197,590), on the idea of include files (4,674,040),
   or on standard byte ordering (4,956,809).

Agreed. Luckily I don't live in the US :-)

-- 
Jon W{tte, h+@nada.kth.se, Sweden, Phone +46-8-107069

"From now on, I think I'll re-label the EQ on the
 desk as Fizz and Wobble, rather than HF and LF."
Newsgroups: misc.legal.computing
From: oppedahl@panix.com (Carl Oppedahl)
Subject: Re: Paper on Compueters in the Legal Profession
Date: Fri, 2 Oct 1992 01:31:50 GMT
Organization: PANIX Public Access Unix, NYC

Well, I trust you saw the Wall Street Journal article last week about
how law firms now need to be able to send and receive email with
clients.

I'm a lawyer but that is not legal advice.
Carl Oppedahl
30 Rockefeller Plaza
New York, NY  10112-0228
From: jloup@chorus.fr (Jean-loup Gailly)
Newsgroups: misc.legal.computing
Subject: Re: data compression patents (was: LZRW, patents, products)
Date: 5 Oct 92 15:06:46 GMT
Reply-To: jloup@chorus.fr (Jean-loup Gailly)

jloup = Jean-loup Gailly <jloup@chorus.fr>
jon   = Jon W{tte <d88-jwa@dront.nada.kth.se>

jloup> The Gibson and Graybill patent 5,049,881 applies only to lzrw1. The
jloup> Jung patent 5,140,321 applies to lzrw3-a. (Note that Ross Williams
jloup> discovered lzrw3-a before Jung, and that Jung applied for his patent
jloup> two months after lzrw3-a was posted on comp.compression.)

jon> Well, then I wouldn't be worried about using lzrw-3a. Prior art
jon> IS prior art after all.

Not in the US. The US patent system is unique because it considers
the date of invention, and the nationality of the inventors:

  "In order for an invention to be patentable it must be new as defined
  in the patent law, which provides that an invention cannot be patented
  if --

  '(a) The invention was known or used by others in this country, or
                                                 ^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^
  patented or described in a printed publication in this or a foreign
  country, before the invention thereof by the application for patent,
  or

  '(b) The invention was patented or described in a printed publication
  in this or a foreign country or in public use or on sale in this
  country more than one year prior to the application for patent in the
                    ^^^^^^^^
  United States...'


The invention made by Ross Williams does not count as prior art in the US
because Ross was not "in this country". His publication does not count
either because it was made only two months earlier and not one year
earlier. Robert Jung *did* independently reinvent the algorithm, so he
did not steal it and had the right to patent it, according to the US
patent system.  This patent system is supposed to promote innovation
by encouraging people to publish their inventions. In the case of
lzrw3-a, the invention was already public so the system works only for
the benefit of one individual and not for the public good.

This might change in the near future because the US are likely to adopt
the rule already in use in most other countries, which considers only
the application date and not the invention date. With the new rules,
the Jung patent would not be valid.

jloup> These patents on run length encoding are about as absurd as the patents
jloup> on the xor cursor (4,197,590), on the idea of include files (4,674,040),
jloup> or on standard byte ordering (4,956,809).

jon> Agreed. Luckily I don't live in the US :-)

You might be glad to know that the GATT treaty will soon impose
software patents on Europe :-(

Jean-loup
Newsgroups: misc.legal.computing
From: rcain@netcom.com (Robert Cain)
Subject: RSA claims 33 and 37 of U.S. patent 4,405,829
Organization: Netcom - Online Communication Services  (408 241-9760 guest) 
Date: Thu, 1 Oct 1992 19:24:44 GMT


The patent contains as claim 33:

	In a communication system an encoding means for transforming a
	transmit message word signal M to a ciphertext word signal C
	where M corresponds to a number representative of a message and

		0 <= M <= n-1

	where n is a composite number and where C corresponds to a number
	representative of an enciphered form of said message and corresponds
	to

		C = a[e]*M^e + a[e-1]*M^(e-1) + ... a[0](mod n)

	where e and a[e], a[e-1], ... a[0] are numbers.

Claim 37 is nearly identical except that cryptographic use is specifically
claimed.

Thus it appears that any cryptographic method using a polynomial modulo
a composite infringes.  I am seeking opinions, particularly from any
legal experts that may read this as to whether this claim which essentially
claims the use of a single mathematical formula is defensable?

Further I would like to know if anyone is aware of any prior art (filing
was Dec. 14, 1977) using a polynomial as simple as C = M^2(mod n) even that 
would invalidate this claim.

Thanks,

Bob
-- 
Bob Cain    rcain@netcom.com   408-358-2007

                ____________________________________________
               \                                           /
                \ Flames to /dev/null    Advice by email! /
                 \                                       /
                  \ PGP public key available on request /
                   \                                   /
                    -----------------------------------
Newsgroups: misc.legal.computing
Subject: Paper on Compueters in the Legal Profession
From: tdunn@ecst.csuchico.edu (Tim Dunn)
Date: 1 Oct 1992 08:13:19 GMT
Organization: California State University, Chico
Summary: Help requested, sourcing, info, etc.
NNTP-Posting-Host: isabella.ecst.csuchico.edu


I'm assigned to do a paper for my tech writing class in the form of a 
proposal to an imaginary computer-illiterate senior member of an
imaginary law firm discussing how computers can benefit his/her firm.
It *is* tech writing (and I'm a CS major, not law) so the emphasis is
on form and style, not content.  However, I would like to have some 
ideas on what to write about.

Hence, the request:

I'm looking for any leads I can find: magazine sources, major newspaper
articles, or just word-of-mouth (newsgroups are acceptable as sources)
on how a computer can help.  Any other data is appreciated, such as, 
"Mini or PC?", "New and available software," "Uses of computers in the
Courtroom", etc.

I would like to stress again that this is not a research paper.  I just
need some smattering of topics and enough information to give a reasonably
detailed discussion on the topic.  Thanks to all who take the time to
reply.

-- 
The only way to get rid of a temptation is to yield to it.
		-- Oscar Wilde
From: nevries@accucx.cc.ruu.nl (Nico E de Vries)
Newsgroups: misc.legal.computing
Subject: Re: data compression patents (was: LZRW, patents, products)
Date: 1 Oct 92 23:30:51 GMT
Organization: Academic Computer Centre Utrecht

In <563@chorus.chorus.fr> jloup@chorus.fr (Jean-loup Gailly) writes:

>...
>The Gibson and Graybill patent 5,049,881 applies only to lzrw1. The
>Jung patent 5,140,321 applies to lzrw3-a. (Note that Ross Williams
>discovered lzrw3-a before Jung, and that Jung applied for his patent
>two months after lzrw3-a was posted on comp.compression.)

Doesn't this imply that the "Jung" patent isn't valid?

>...
>before that of Unisys, but the US patent office failed to recognize
>that they covered the same algorithm. (The IBM patent is more general,

Isn't that the usual procedure there ? :-)

>Jean-loup Gailly

Nico E. de Vries
 _ _
 O O  USENET nevries@cc.ruu.nl This text reflects MY opinions, nothing else.
  o   This text is supplied 'AS IS', no waranties of any kind apply.
 \_/  Don't waste your time on complaining about my hopeless typostyle.

"I own so many clocks that I need 1 hour to set them all one hour back
 for Winter time. Nevertheless it does not cost me any time."
From: bmich@cs.utexas.edu (Brian Keith Michalk)
Newsgroups: misc.legal.computing
Subject: Who owns the goods????
Date: 6 Oct 1992 21:25:02 -0500
Organization: U Texas Dept of Computer Sciences, Austin TX
Distribution: usa
NNTP-Posting-Host: cash.cs.utexas.edu

At the start of this year, I worked for an environmental company to come
up with a database that would keep track of some of their samples, and what
not.

This was strictly contract labor.  I was not an employee, but we did not sign
a contract as to what would be provided, or who would own the source code.

At the time practically all of the work was done in their office on their 
equipment to speed up the development.  Lateley though I have been doing
all the programming here at home on my own equipment.

Now the company wants to expand the program to use in their other various
offices.

So the question is, who owns the copyright?  Do I have a right to ask for
compensation from each of the offices that wants to use it?  And if so,
how would be the best way to go about charging all the various offices?

Thanks for the advice.
From: mcelwre@cnsvax.uwec.edu
Newsgroups: misc.legal.computing
Subject: MARK-OF-THE-BEA$T bar-code$
Date: 29 Sep 92 18:24:56 -0600
Organization: University of Wisconsin Eau Claire



                           THE "MARK OF THE BEA$T"

               ALL Christians are PROHIBITED by Revelation 14:9-11 from 
          cooperating with the "MARK-OF-THE-BEA$T" bar-code, OCR-
          number, and magnetic-strip scanning systems, (as found in 
          local libraries, supermarkets, retail establishments, etc.), 
          which also THREATEN to SUBVERT Individual Privacy and 
          Freedom. 

               The scanners can serve THE SAME CRIMINAL PURPOSE as the 
          TV cameras in the book "1984"! 

               The UPC bar-codes are probably the most blatant form of 
          the "MARK OF THE BEA$T" so far, with the "NUMBER OF THE 
          BEA$T", 666, ALREADY CODED INTO THEM.  Each of the so-called 
          "guard patterns", pairs of thin lines spaced close together 
          at the beginning, middle, and end of each full-length UPC 
          bar-code, is IDENTICAL to one of the two codes for a 6. 

               WARN YOUR FRIENDS!


               UN-altered REPRODUCTION and DISSEMINATION of this 
          IMPORTANT Information is ENCOURAGED. 


                                   Robert E. McElwaine


Newsgroups: misc.legal
From: dpollard@magnus.acs.ohio-state.edu (Dennis B Pollard)
Subject: Re: Car Insurance: No Comprehensive => NO THEFT INSURANCE!!!
Organization: The Ohio State University
Date: Sat, 26 Sep 1992 21:32:19 GMT

I thought that it was "common knowledge" that if a person did not have 
comprehensive coverage the person is not protected against theft.  When I was 
looking for car insurance two years ago, it was pointed out.

I concede, though, that my policy is broken down into liability and everything 
else, i.e., comprehensive.
Newsgroups: misc.legal,rec.arts.books