HDTenEightyP/NetNews huggingface dataset:
From: reddym@Barra.COM (Reddy Mallidi)
Subject: Germany Advises Pakistan to Reassess its Attitude on Kashmir
Organization: BARRA, CA.
Date: Tue, 10 Nov 92 02:01:44 GMT


    Source : DPA
    Dates  : Oct 27, 1992 
    Country: Pakistan

                                 * * * * * *

    * German Minister Advises Pakistan to Reassess its Attitude on Kashmir

        German Foreign Minister Klaus Kinkel advised Pakistan to reassess
    its position and seek a new basis for resolving its 45-year-old conflict
    with India over Kashmir. After a wide ranging talks with Pakistani 
    President, Prime Minister, and Minister of state for foreign affairs in
    Islamabad, he said "it is useless not to realize that the world has c
    changed", at a press conference. Kinkel said the right of self 
    determination was "not touched", in this context in the talks that he
    had with Pakistani leaders.  
        In discussing human rights issue in Islamabad, Kinkel said he asked
    the Pakistani leaders "to guarantee the religious freedom of Ahmadis".
    Followers of Ahmadi sect who had been asylum in Germany since being
    excommunicated from Islam by an act of Pakistani parliament in 1974.
    On the nuclear issue, Kinkel expressed concern that India and Pakistan
    had not signed the NPT, and the five-nation conference proposed by the
    Pakistan on this issue could be the "first positive step towards 
    creating a regional control system", he said. Kinkel said Prime Minister
    Nawaz Sharif agreed with him that Pakistan's defence expenditure was
    "far too high", and excess money was better spent on "real needs".
    (DPA Oct 27)

                                   * E N D *
Newsgroups: misc.news.southasia
From: gnreddy@cbnewsf.att.com (G.Narotham Reddy)
Subject: South Africa withdraws world cup bid
Organization: AT&T
Date: Fri, 6 Nov 92 13:02:46 GMT


Source   : The CGI

Cricket News
                            * * * * * *


* South Africa withdraws world cup bid

Johannessburg: (Nov 4): In an apparent bid to increase the subcontinent's
chances of staging the next Cricket world cup, Sourth Africa has
withdrawn its candidature for the same.
	The Managing Director of the United Cricket Board of South
Africa, Dr.Ali Bacher, said in a statement here that the Executive
Committee of the UCBSA had decided to withdraw their bid to stage the
competition. The decision, according to sources closer to Dr.Bacher,
had been taken quite some time ago with a view to providing wider
platform to India, Pakistan and Srilanka to jointly host the world cup.
England is also in the race to stage the competition that will be held
either in 1995 or 1996.
	Bacher said an unprecedented programme at home and away
as well as UCBSA's committment to its development programme makes it 
impractical to undertake the massive organization that goes with the 
staging of the world cup competition.

                              * E N D *
Newsgroups: misc.news.southasia
From: gnreddy@cbnewsf.att.com (G.N.Reddy)
Subject: India to get fast disbursal assistance from World Bank
Organization: AT&T
Date: Wed, 11 Nov 92 21:25:45 GMT


Source    : The CGI
Date      : November 11, 1992  
Country   : India

                          * * * * 

* India is likely to get fast disbursal assistance up to $1 billion 

New Delhi: Nov 11 - India is likely to get fast disbusral assistance up
to 1 billion dollars from the World Bank and other agencies in the next 
three years. This was disclosed after a constructive discussions between 
world bank President Uleweiss Preston and India's Finance Minister
Dr.Manmohan Singh here on Wednesday in New Delhi. The assistance would 
be apart from the external aid India was seeking for carrying out its 
ongoing structural reform programs. The government was already negotiating 
a 7.5-9 billion dollar loan from the IMF under the extended fund facility, 
the softlending arm of the IMF, in the next three years. 
	Soon after the crucial meeting on wednesday Preston assured India 
of full support to meet its exceptional financial needs of 7-9 billion 
dollars in the next three years for the success of the reforms program. 
He said the bank was convinced that India's economic reform programs 
were on track and the world bank was looking forward to future modifications. 
Dr.Singh said there was no concern expressed at all on the pace of reforms 
and Preston realised that the reform efforts were on target.

      
* India delegation to discuss with Clinton administration about NPT issue

An Indian delegation led by additional Secretary Mr.C.Daspgupta is leaving 
on Wednesday for Washington for the second round of bilateral discussions on 
NPT. The discussions will take place just a week after the victory of Bill 
Clinton, a democrat in the US presidential elections. 
	The Indian side will establish initial contacts with the Clinton 
transition team which will deal with the subject in due course though a new 
democratic administration will take office in Jan, the second round of talks 
will provide an opportunity to gauge in shift in the emphasis in Washington 
on the nuclear issue.
	The US is keen that India agree to participate in a five nation 
summit to resolve the nuclear issue in the subcontinent. The participants 
listed are the US, Russia, China, India and Pakistan.
	The discussions are part of the ongoing dialogue between the two 
countries that was set in motion following a decision taken at the New York 
meeting between the Indian Prime Minister Mr.P.V.Narasimha Rao and the U.S. 
President George Bush during the security council summit last Feb. The 
Indian delegation will meet officials of the state department and the US 
department of atomic energy.

                                 * E N D *
Newsgroups: misc.int-property,comp.unix.bsd
Newsgroups: misc.int-property
Subject: Re: Interface monopolies
From: a_rubin@dsg4.dse.beckman.com (Arthur Rubin)
Date: 5 Nov 92 17:59:32 GMT
Organization: Beckman Instruments, Inc.

In <id.D9PU._Z1@ferranti.com> peter@ferranti.com (peter da silva) writes:

>                    Similarly, there is a copyright that has been defended
>successfuly that seems to pretty much cover any use of the word "ILLINOIS",
>with a map of the state nestled into the first "L", in a corporate logo.

So use the second L.  (I thought that was trademark, rather than copyright.)
--
Arthur L. Rubin: a_rubin@dsg4.dse.beckman.com (work) Beckman Instruments/Brea
216-5888@mcimail.com 70707.453@compuserve.com arthur@pnet01.cts.com (personal)
My opinions are my own, and do not represent those of my employer.
My interaction with our news system is unstable; please mail anything important.
Newsgroups: misc.int-property,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: Thu, 12 Nov 1992 08:11:14 GMT

In article <id.FFUU.QCB@ferranti.com> peter@ferranti.com (peter da silva) writes:

>Free or very cheap software (such as the software implementing the very
>medium we're discussing this subject in) has been a driving force in the
>computer industry. Does the patent office recognise this as "publication?"

Unless the software is printed and in a library somewhere probably,
no. However, it recognizes it as a product offered for sale or
distribution, and that also counts as prior art if available to the
general public.  So it would still count against a patent.

Note that if not widely known, such a situation is not likely to come
to the attention of the PTO.  So they might grant the patent in
absence of their awareness of the prior art.  But it would count for
the defence in an infringement case.

  
-- 

Scott L. McGregor		mcgregor@netcom.com
President			tel: 408-985-1824
Prescient Software, Inc.	fax: 408-985-1936
3494 Yuba Avenue
San Jose, CA 95117-2967



Newsgroups: misc.int-property,comp.unix.bsd
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, 9 Nov 1992 22:03:15 GMT

In article <1992Nov8.064806.27926@udel.edu> berryh@huey.udel.edu (John
Berryhill, Ph.D.) writes an excellent discussion of why patents help
small-time entrepreneurs.

Irrelevant.

Free or very cheap software (such as the software implementing the very
medium we're discussing this subject in) has been a driving force in the
computer industry. Does the patent office recognise this as "publication?"
-- 
% Peter da Silva % 77487-5012 % +1 713 274 5180 %
true(<<VV$@\\$'&O 9$O%'$LT$&$"V6"$&$<4$?'&$ #I&&?$=$<<@)24 24 scale 3 21 moveto
{dup 36 eq{pop not}{dup 7 and 4 sub exch 56 and 8 div 4 sub 2 index{rlineto}{
rmoveto}ifelse}ifelse}forall stroke pop showpage % Har du kramat din varg idag?
Newsgroups: misc.int-property
From: jmfuchs@unix.amherst.edu (JESSE MICHAEL FUCHS)
Subject: Re: Crosley Bendix (Negativland) Discusses The Copyright Act
Organization: Amherst College
X-Newsreader: TIN [version 1.1 PL6]
Date: Thu, 12 Nov 1992 07:09:06 GMT

	Negativland are the greatest thing in existence. Did you hear about
the other lawsuits on the same lines? The two I know about are:

	Too Much Joy got sued for putting a sample of Bozo the Clown on their
"Son of Sam I am" album. From what I remember, they had to remove it from all
future pressings and pay Bozo $200 or something.

	Carter the Unstoppable Sex Machine got sued by Michael Jackson for
%20 of the profit of one of their songs, because they quoted two lines from
a Beatles song. Pretty ironic, considering the beginning lines of "Come 
Together" are from a Chuck Berry song...

	Anyone else know of any other violations of our right to cultural
appropriation? Send 'em here!

						-fuchs
Newsgroups: misc.int-property,comp.unix.bsd
From: berryh@huey.udel.edu (John Berryhill, Ph.D.)
Subject: Re: Patents:  What they are.  What they aren't.  Other factors.
Organization: little scraps of paper, mostly
Distribution: usa
Date: Sun, 8 Nov 1992 06:48:06 GMT


It is precisely the small-time operators without large financial
backing that benefit the most from patent protection.

First off, you make it sound as if it costs a fortune to obtain
a patent.  That is simply not true.  Even pricey patent law firms
would charge you somewhere from a couple of grand to somewhere in the
mid to high teens.  If that is a lot of money, then the invention
must not be worth all that much in the first place.

And where do you get a couple of grand in the first place?  You have
a full year from the first day you sell your invention until the day
you file your patent application.  Again, if you don't make enough
to pay a few grand for a patent, then what's the gripe?  If you need
money in order to produce your product before you can sell the product
in order to get the money to obtain the patent, you can license it
even before you get the patent.  In fact, if a prospective licensee wants
to see you get a patent before he will cough up the cash so that you
can manufacture the invention, then you are in one of the few situations
in which the PTO will grant your application special status and expedite
examination of your application.

Most of the patents filed in this country are filed by small businesses.
That's where the innovation is.  Large organizations tend to stifle
innovation (yes, there are a few exceptions), and whenever possible
large organizations are able to knock-off and more effectively market
the little guy's product unless the little guy has some way to stop
them.  Heck, if any company with less than 500 employees gets a 50%
discount from the PTO on most of the fees relating to obtaining a
patent.  I can't see where there is any great financial barrier to
anyone obtaining patent protection on a worthwhile invention.
-- 
                                                John Berryhill, Ph.D.
Newsgroups: misc.int-property,comp.unix.bsd
From: mcnally@quip.eecs.umich.edu (Mike McNally)
Subject: Re: Patents:  What they are.  What they aren't.  Other factors.
Organization: University of Michigan EECS Dept., Ann Arbor, MI
Distribution: usa
Date: Thu, 5 Nov 1992 16:39:22 GMT

In article <1992Nov4.035758.1767@netcom.com> mcgregor@netcom.com (Scott Mcgregor) writes:

>I've commented on this before, that the argument about the public good
>raised by patent opponents sometimes seems to run like this:
>
>1) Patents are supposed to benefit the public.
>
>2) I'm a member of the public.
>
>3) I personally would never be motivated by patents to benefit others.
>(Being as I am opposed to them)
>
>4) I personally would be limited/hurt by the limitations. (Because I'm
>the type of person who would independently reinvent, or intentionally
>re-engineer another person's profitable invention).
>
>Therefore, generalizing from my personal limitations and lack of
>benefits, and because I am a member of the public I conclude that the
>public at large won't benefit. And since that conclusion is at odds
>with the goal in 1), patents should be eliminated.

You seem to have either a gigantic blindspot or an intentional tendency 
to ignore:

5)  Being an independent programmer without the financial backing of a
    large software development house, I have neither the legal expertise
    nor the financial resources to produce an acceptable patent application.
    A substantial amount of innovation in the field of software comes from
    small-time, independent programmers who would very often be either
    forced to compromise their interest in their innovations by selling
    their intellectual property interests to a firm that did have the
    resources to pursue a patent or be locked out of protecting their
    rights to their creation if they were either unwilling to compromise
    those rights or unable to interest someone in financially backing them.

    Patents, with the substantial cost of researching and producing an
    application, dramatically favor those market players who have the
    financial resources it takes to get them.  In the software world,
    the richest players are often not the most productive innovators.
    I think that reasonable persons will agree that the tremendous amount
    and variety of innovation produced by the smaller players in the
    game is a Good Thing.  I'll leave it to you to figure out whether
    the public would be well served by a system that puts the independent
    at such a disadvantage that it would often be no longer worthwhile
    for them to try to compete.
From: p.lynch@fs4.mbs.ac.uk (Patrick Lynch)
Newsgroups: misc.int-property
Subject: I am looking for accomodation in Barcelona
Summary: I am looking for accomodation in Barcelona
Keywords: Barcelona
Date: 4 Nov 92 16:48:36 GMT
Organization: Manchester Business School

Hello,

I am an MBA student currently completing my second year at Manchester 
Business School.  As part of my studies I will be studying in Barcelona from
January to the end of March 1993.  I would like some help with accomodation
as close the "Zona Universidad" as possible.  Ideally I would like to rent a 
small flat for this period, but I would be willing to share or rent a room 
in a house etc... I am 35 and speak Spannish.  
I would also be willing to house sit as I am good at maintenance and own a 
flat in the centre of London

If you think you can help me please contact me as soon as possible.

Patrick
################################################################
# Patrick Lynch                                                #
# Manchester Business School                                   #
# Manchester, England.                                         #
#                                                              #
# E-mail Address:- p.lynch@fs4.mbs.ac.uk                       #
#                                                              #
#                                                              #
################################################################
Newsgroups: misc.int-property
Subject: Re: Patents: What they are. What they aren't. Other factors.
From: a_rubin@dsg4.dse.beckman.com (Arthur Rubin)
Date: 12 Nov 92 20:03:41 GMT
 <1992Nov10.231930.25456@netcom.com> <1druj0INNobj@early-bird.think.com> <1992Nov12.073625.3616@netcom.com>
Distribution: usa
Organization: Beckman Instruments, Inc.

In <1992Nov12.073625.3616@netcom.com> mcgregor@netcom.com (Scott Mcgregor) writes:

>Yes, it is clear that it is in the inventor's best interest to claim
>as much as possible, and sometimes the PTO allows too much and the
                          ^^^^^^^^^ usually
>courts must restrict the coverage later. I think that if something
        ^^^^ should, but usually don't in software.
>could be done to improve this situation it ought to be.  I note that
>this would benefit clarity in ALL patent cases, software has by no
>means any kind of monopoly in overly broad patents.


--
Arthur L. Rubin: a_rubin@dsg4.dse.beckman.com (work) Beckman Instruments/Brea
216-5888@mcimail.com 70707.453@compuserve.com arthur@pnet01.cts.com (personal)
My opinions are my own, and do not represent those of my employer.
My interaction with our news system is unstable; please mail anything important.
From: sbarber@panix.com (Steve Barber)
Subject: Re: Crosley Bendix (Negativland) Discusses The Copyright Act
Date: Thu, 12 Nov 1992 15:00:19 GMT
Organization: PANIX Public Access Unix, NYC
Keywords: Copyright,Negativland,U2,lawsuit,reform

In <1992Nov10.93616.19134@ms.uky.edu> morgan@engr.uky.edu (Wes Morgan) writes:
>. . . , but I believe that we
>should have an exclusive right <as guaranteed in the Constitution> to our
>works. 

Actually, exclusive rights to works are not "guaranteed in the
Constitution."  According to Article 1, Section 8, cl. 8, Congress has
the power to grant these rights.

"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[.]"

They have granted these rights, so we have them.  At the moment.
Congress also has the power to limit or even entirely eliminate such
rights.  So, while the power to grant such rights is constitutional,
the rights themselves are merely statutory, and could be repealed
tomorrow if the Congress (and maybe the President) so chose.

The majority of copyright scholars in the United States agree that
copyright is fundamentally economic in its foundations and
application, and reject the personality theories that underlie some
people's claims to their intellectual property.

Thus, if a case could be convincingly made that appropriation art was
in the economic interest of the country and that it did not discourage
the production and dissemination of new works, then and only then would
it be appropriate to modify the Copyright act to allow it.

Of course, the supporters of such a proposal would have to outspend
Time-Warner and Sony for the hearts of Congresspeople, but that's just
an implementation detail.


-- 
Steve Barber                                             sbarber@panix.com
"The direct deed is the most meaningful reflection." - Bill Evans
Nothing I say is legal advice.  It can't be.  I don't know anything.

Newsgroups: misc.int-property,misc.legal.computing
From: bhayden@teal.csn.org (Bruce Hayden)
Subject: Re: Look and Feel Infringement (was: Interface monopolies)
Organization: Colorado SuperNet, Inc.
Date: Sat, 7 Nov 1992 14:02:44 GMT

>In article <dbAj02yw29ss01@JUTS.ccc.amdahl.com>, tjc50@juts.ccc.amdahl.com 
>(Terry Carroll) writes:
>> "Look and Feel" did not originate with software copyright.  It originated 
>in 
>> a case where Sid and Marty Kroft sued McDonald's for producing television 
>> commercials with the same "look and feel" as (but no literal copying of) 
>the 
>> Kroft TV shows like "H.R. Puffenstuff".  It's not a result of an attempt to 
>> effectively produce a software patent.

>I have to correct myself here in two ways.

>First, the phrase used back then was "total concept and feel", not "look and 
>feel", but manings of the two phrases are identical;

>Second, the Krofft (not "Kroft") case did not originate the doctrine, but 
>apparently began its entrenchment.  The case in which "total concept and 
>feel" originated was Roth Greeting Cards v. United Card Co., 429 F.2d 1106 
>(9th Cir., 1970).  The Krofft case was not until 1977: Sid and Marty Krofft 
>Television Productions v. McDonalds Corp. 562 F.2d 1157 (9th Cir., 1977).

>As a side note, both of these cases were decided under the old Copyright Act 
>of 1909, because the Copyright Act of 1976 did not take effect until January 
>1, 1978.

I haven't reread those cases recently, but I am not sure that they would
have come out any differently under the '76 Act.

Bruce Hayden
bhayden@csn.org

Xref: sparky misc.int-property:1432 comp.unix.bsd:8803
From: dave@prc.unisys.com (David Lee Matuszek)
Newsgroups: misc.int-property,comp.unix.bsd
Subject: Re: Patents:  What they are.  What they aren't.  Other factors.
Date: 12 Nov 92 19:45:37 GMT
Distribution: usa
Organization: Paoli Research Center - Paoli, PA

In article <1992Nov8.064806.27926@udel.edu> berryh@huey.udel.edu (John Berryhill, Ph.D.) writes:
>
>First off, you make it sound as if it costs a fortune to obtain
>a patent.  That is simply not true.  Even pricey patent law firms
>would charge you somewhere from a couple of grand to somewhere in the
>mid to high teens.  If that is a lot of money, then the invention
>must not be worth all that much in the first place.

That's not a lot of money?
Boy, am I in the wrong newsgroup!!!

-- 
"The majority of the stupid is invincible and guaranteed for all time.
The terror of their tyranny, however, is alleviated by their lack of
consistency."      -- Albert Einstein
Xref: sparky misc.int-property:1412 misc.legal.computing:2247
From: tjc50@juts.ccc.amdahl.com (Terry Carroll)
Newsgroups: misc.int-property,misc.legal.computing
Subject: Re: Look and Feel Infringement (was: Interface monopolies)
Date: 9 Nov 92 18:13:38 GMT
Reply-To: tjc50@juts.ccc.amdahl.com (Terry Carroll)
Organization: Amdahl Corporation

In article <bhayden.721140119@teal>, bhayden@teal.csn.org (Bruce Hayden) 
writes:
> tjc50@juts.ccc.amdahl.com (Terry Carroll) writes:
> 
> >In article <1992Nov3.184022.22163@fcom.cc.utah.edu>, terry@cs.weber.edu (A 
> >Wizard of Earth C) writes:
> >> "Look and feel" is a direct result of an attempt to extend the protection
> >> granted in a copyright to effectively produce a "software patent", or at
> >> least the equivalent. 
> 
> Unfortunately, look and feel C/R is invariably much broader than patent 
> protection. Additionally, the C/R is never examined.
> 
> >"Look and Feel" did not originate with software copyright.  It originated 
in 
> >a case where Sid and Marty Kroft sued McDonald's for producing television 
> >commercials with the same "look and feel" as (but no literal copying of) 
the 
> >Kroft TV shows like "H.R. Puffenstuff".  It's not a result of an attempt 
to 
> >effectively produce a software patent.
> 
> I do not agree with your logic. Yes, the concept was not invented just
> for software. But that is where it is the most insidious. 

I'm not sure what you think my logic is.  The statement was made, 
incorrectly, that "'Look and feel is a direct result of an attempt to extend 
the protection granted in a copyright to effectively produce a 'software 
patent', or at least the equivalent."  This statement is wrong, because "look 
and feel", under the name "total concept and feel", originated in a context 
totally unrelated to software.  I pointed that out.  My logic is limited to 
that point.  

With which part do you disagree?

Terry Carroll - tjc50@juts.ccc.amdahl.com - 408/992-2152
The opinions presented above are not necessarily those of a sound mind.