HDTenEightyP/NetNews huggingface dataset:
From: gast@oahu.cs.ucla.edu (David Gast)
Subject: Compression (Re: Letter asking for help with Apple from the US VP
Organization: UCLA, Computer Science Department
Date: Tue, 29 Sep 92 22:05:13 GMT

In article <29581.Sep2900.20.3792@virtualnews.nyu.edu> brnstnd@nyu.edu (D. J. Bernstein) writes:

>In article <1992Sep26.163059.24740@rwwa.COM> witr@rwwa.com writes:

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

First, if patent law were being followed correctly, it would be impossible
for two patents on the same algorithm.  Second, funny that a guy named Welch
invented an algorithm called LZW, instead of just W.

Third, I suggest the real innovation was done by LZ (Lempel-Ziv).  This
innovation was not patented.

Neither MW/IBM nor LZW/Unisys should have received patents.  For that matter,
I don't think LZ should either.

>Explain how innovation was encouraged here.

It was not.

The problem is worse because CCCIT requires the use of compression in
certain modems.  If you want to build a compliant modem, you have
to license the two competing patents or face a suit for infringement of
patent.  Now you may say "Let them sue me, they both can't have this
patent", but a successful patent fight costs millions.  It's cheaper just
to pay and be "protected" from suit.  Innovation is not encouraged; it
is retarded.

David
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: Sun, 27 Sep 1992 06:43:25 GMT

In article <BETSYS.92Sep26123456@ra.cs.umb.edu> betsys@cs.umb.edu (Elizabeth Schwartz) writes:

>   It seems correct that a "fake" nude picture of a real child would
>not be prosecutable on these grounds, but might it be illegal for
>other reasons? If a real child is involved, and a nude-appearing
>picture is published, the child could be caused  a great deal of
>embarassment and possibly endangered. Couldn't this be considered
>slander or libel or endangering the child or something?
>  It certainly is really really nasty.

Many states have "invasion of privacy" torts that the child (and his/her
parents or guardian) could use to recover damages from the perpetrator of
such a use of the child's image. These torts include, but may not be
limited to, "false light" and "appropriation of one's likeness."


--Mike




-- 
Mike Godwin,    |"The meeting of two personalities is like the contact 
mnemonic@eff.org| of two chemical substances: if there is any reaction, 
(617) 864-0665  | both are transformed."
EFF, Cambridge  |                           --Carl Jung 
Xref: sparky comp.org.eff.talk:6193 alt.bbs.internet:3856
From: jim.wenzel@grapevine.lrk.ar.us (Jim Wenzel)
Newsgroups: comp.org.eff.talk,alt.bbs.internet
Subject: Son of NREN bill online someplace?
Date: 2 Oct 92 05:31:00 GMT
Reply-To: jim.wenzel@grapevine.lrk.ar.us (Jim Wenzel)
Organization: The GrapeVine BBS *** N. Little Rock, AR *** (501) 753-8121


Greenie@drycas.club.cc.cm  * Hi -  I know Al Gore's  NREN bill is online
                             in electronic form. But does anyone know if
                             the most recent bill,  "The Son of NREN" is
                             online  someplace? It  would come  in handy
                             for a report I'm writing...
                                 = = =

  A  copy of  most of  Bill's and   Al's speeches  can be  found at  the
  "Clinton/Gore BBS" (yes, the PR dept  has a BBS). It's number is (501)
  399-3877. Tell the sysop I sent you... (We're trying to talk them into
  connecting to the net).

   *****************************************************************
   *  Jim Wenzel,    SysOp,    The GrapeVine BBS,   (501) 753-8121 *
   *  RIME,  Use-Net,  ForthNet,  SmartNet,  MetroLink,  Intelec , *
   *  RecoverNet, ThrobNet and MediaNet message echos.  Large IBM, *
   *  Amiga, Adult and  Programming file areas.  4.2 gigs on-line. *
   *****************************************************************
---
 * SM 1.06 A0059 * I am still in . testing, wait until I am released
                                                                  
Xref: sparky comp.org.eff.talk:6046 comp.unix.bsd:6564 comp.os.mach:1410 misc.int-property:1064 alt.suit.att-bsdi:386 comp.sys.mac.advocacy:859
From: mellon@ncd.com (Ted Lemon)
Newsgroups: comp.org.eff.talk,comp.unix.bsd,comp.os.mach,misc.int-property,alt.suit.att-bsdi,comp.sys.mac.advocacy
Subject: Re: Letter asking for help with Apple from the US VP
Date: 29 Sep 92 16:10:54 GMT
Followup-To: comp.org.eff.talk
Distribution: usa


Patents are written in legalese, not computerese.   Algorithms are described
in language that only a lawyer could understand easily.   For one of us,
reading a patent to find out what it covers is a very slow and laborious
process.   Have you ever read the XOR patent?

Also, there is no index to patents that would allow you to be certain of
finding only patents applicable to software, and certainly not patents
applicable to your particular situation.   Algorithms often have applications
far more general than the purpose for which they were patented, but the
patent still covers those other applications.   An example of this is
Lempel-Ziv compression, which is patented for use in modems, but is used
in many, many other situations.

Many software patents are on portions of systems, not on the whole system -
for example, the XOR cursor patent.   One company has a patent on the idea
of a dialog box with two scrolling windows from which you can select pairs
of filenames.   Can you afford to do a patent search on every functional
block in your system?  Can you afford to do it on every line of code?

Finally, there aren't yet very many software patents, compared to most
other fields of endeavor.   The effort involved in doing a patent search
on an individual algorithm in your program, multiplied by the number of
algorithms in an average interesting application, is already onerous - the
only mitigating circumstance is that most people simply don't do this -
they just wait and hope that they won't be sued.

When the number of patents on software has increased by an order of
magnitude, the likelihood of a program infringing on a patent will have
increased by that same amount, meaning that more people will consider it
necessary to do patent searches.   At the same time, the number of patents
needing to be searched will have increased by an order of magnitude, making
the already onerous cost mentioned above prohibitive.   Small companies will
stop selling software, or if they do sell it, it will cost an order of
magnitude more than it costs today.   That is not the purpose for which the
patent system exists.

				_MelloN_
--
mellon@ncd.com						uunet!lupine!mellon
Member, League for Programming Freedom | To learn how software patents could
cost you your right to program, contact the LPF - league@prep.ai.mit.edu
From: Don.Kulha@f7.n125.z1.fidonet.org (Don Kulha)
Newsgroups: comp.org.eff.talk
Subject: Federal BBS list
Date: 3 Oct 92 01:10:10 GMT
Article-I.D.: puddle.5589.2ACEA652
Organization: FidoNet node 1:125/7 - Sonoma Online, Santa Rosa CA


 SC> From: aq817@cleveland.Freenet.Edu (Steve Crocker)
 SC> Date: 14 Sep 1992 05:44:31 GMT
 SC> Organization: Case Western Reserve University, Cleveland, Ohio (USA)
 SC> Message-ID: <1918rvINNm7f@usenet.INS.CWRU.Edu>
 SC> Newsgroups: comp.org.eff.talk

 SC> I found the following BBS list on the supernet free information service
 SC> (supernet@supernet.ans.net ) and thought it would be of interest here.
 SC> Most of the BBS's here appear to be run by Federal Agencies, and a 
 SC> surprising number of them are public access. If anybody is a local call 
 SC> from any of these (or has PC pursuit) why don't you check them out
 SC> and let us know about any goodies.

     Steve I appreciate your posting this list of Federal and "recreational" BBS systems. It is far more comprehensive than the one I have now. One note of interest. The system shown below (from the list):

 SC> 707-545-0746 - California, Survival Communications Forum.

Changed it's name a while back to Sonoma Online, SOL!BBS. It's still a fairly interesting wide-spot in the bitstream and besides serving general interests has a good collection of Alternative energy files, data and has the first ten issues of Home Power magazine online for download as well as being the home of the moderator of the HOMEPOWR Alternative Energy EchoConference on FidoNet. I think this is a tremendously useful use of bandwidth and exciting stuff to have online....but then I would since I'm the 



sysop and aforementioned moderator.
     We changed the system name a while back and kind of toned down the apparent "Survival" aspect of the system. We feel as strongly as ever that survival is an important topic but came to realize that our enviornment is the most important battleground and that if we can't save it all other survival considerations are useless. So we changed the name and the content to some extent...but still have the same agenda....using the medium to promote ourmutual survival....DCK
--
Internet: Don.Kulha@f7.n125.z1.FIDONET.ORG     FidoNet:  Don Kulha @ 1:125/7
Snail:    Don Kulha / Sonoma Online / POB 7518 / Santa Rosa CA 95407
Voice:    +1 707 526 9473                      BBS: 1 707 545 0746 HST/V32b




--  
uucp: uunet!m2xenix!puddle!125!7!Don.Kulha
Internet: Don.Kulha@f7.n125.z1.fidonet.org
Newsgroups: comp.org.eff.talk
From: wb8foz@skybridge.SCL.CWRU.Edu (David Lesher)
Newsgroups: comp.org.eff.talk
Subject: Re: Child Pornography was Re: Sysops' Top 20 Legal Questions
Date: 27 Sep 1992 14:13:17 GMT
Organization: NRK Clinic for habitual NetNews abusers - Beltway Annex
Distribution: inet
Reply-To: wb8foz@skybridge.scl.cwru.edu (David Lesher)
NNTP-Posting-Host: skybridge.scl.cwru.edu

Others said
# >   It seems correct that a "fake" nude picture of a real child would
# >not be prosecutable on these grounds, but might it be illegal for
# >other reasons? 

To REALLY muddle the waters, construct the "person" in question.

Case 1) Just use the best bits from X thousnd people, and mix and
match. How many bits from each person can you use before he/she sues
you?

Case 2) Build an entire body, al-la the Holideck. If you pay for
services, is it prostitution? If the construct is an image of oh, 
Ms 38-24-36, can she sue you? Defamation of character, 
or on Intellectual {;-} Property grounds ?

There's lots more work for the courts coming up in the future.

--
A host is a host from coast to coast..wb8foz@skybridge.scl.cwru.edu
& no one will talk to a host that's close..........................
Unless the host (that isn't close).........................pob 1433
is busy, hung or dead....................................20915-1433
Newsgroups: comp.org.eff.talk,misc.int-property,alt.suit.att-bsdi,comp.unix.bsd
From: witr@rwwa.COM (Robert Withrow)
Subject: Re: Patents:  What they are.  What they aren't.  Other factors.
Reply-To: witr@rwwa.com
Organization: R.W. Withrow Associates
Distribution: usa
Date: Wed, 30 Sep 1992 14:32:05 GMT

In article <5204.Sep2920.32.3192@virtualnews.nyu.edu>, 
  brnstnd@nyu.edu (D. J. Bernstein) writes:

| If you could make a mathematical algorithm patentable
| simply by adding ``and then we write the result to a storage device'' to
| it, then any novice patent lawyer could turn any mathematical algorithm
| into something patentable. This would defeat the entire purpose of
| prohibiting such patents.
| 
| I'm treading on solid legal ground here.

You are, as far as you go.  But when you say:

| It is essential that, to cure rubber, you actually take a physical piece
| of rubber and do something to it.
| It is not essential that, to apply the LZW algorithm, you actually take
| a physical disk and compress the bits on it.

you have confounded the algorithm and the patent.  As far as I am concerned
I can cure rubber in my head (using the algorithm involved) as well as I 
can compress data there (using the LZW algorithm).  (Some might claim my 
head is already filled with cured rubber and whatnot ;-).  In my head
rubber is no more substantial than bits.  But the rubber-curing patent
doesn't claim the *algorithm*, it claims the *process*.  Likewise (since I
don't currently have the patent handy) I expect the LZW patent claims
a process which is the application of an algorithm to a specific use.

Now, when you say:

| In article <a=+p43j.mcgregor@netcom.com>
| mcgregor@netcom.com (Scott Mcgregor) writes:
| > Now real physical effects are happening: digital signals on a control
| > line in a modem are changing, [...]
| 
| The United States Supreme Court calls such effects ``insignificant''

the insignificance comes *not* from the fact that these effects are electrical
in nature, but because these effects are insignificant with respect to the
*process*.  In other words, these effects are insignificant if they amount
to nothing more than ``and then we write the result to a storage device''
as you noted in the first paragraph.

So, as I understand the Court's reasoning in these cases, if the application
of an algorithm in a process is usefull and novel, and the process is more
than just a trivial application of the algorithm (stated another way, the
process is more than just an insignificant extension the use of the algorithm
itself) a patent may be allowed.  And this argument would apply to data
compression or whatever as well as rubber curing.

-- 
 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:6142 misc.int-property:1100 alt.suit.att-bsdi:418 comp.unix.bsd:6697
From: sms@WLV.IIPO.GTEGSC.COM (Steven M. Schultz)
Subject: Re: Patents:  What they are.  What they aren't.  Other factors.
Organization: GTE Government Systems
Distribution: usa
Date: Sat, 3 Oct 92 08:16:39 GMT

In article <1992Oct3.070637.26597@netcom.com> mcgregor@netcom.com (Scott Mcgregor) writes:

	Can we _please_ return to the original purpose of the group?  I for
	one have seen enough quasi/pseudo/net-lawyers expounding on everything
	from the patent system to now having the FSF brought in.  Enough is
	enough.

	What is the current status of the suit for which this group is named,
	who is (or will) attend the sessions, etc?  That is what this group
	is (or should be IMHO) about.  Not endless anecdotes, stories, usw.

	Steven Schultz
	sms@wlv.iipo.gtegsc.com
From: kadie@herodotus.cs.uiuc.edu (Carl M. Kadie)
Subject: Re: What is "banning" anyway?
Organization: University of Illinois, Dept. of Comp. Sci., Urbana, IL
Distribution: na
Date: Mon, 5 Oct 1992 00:46:45 GMT

mark@kraken.ucsd.edu (Mark Anderson) writes:

[...]
>You might want to check with the Human Resource Department
>about sexual harassment law and the concept of a hostile 
>workplace.  Of course there is no problem until someone
>is actually offended.  Your insistence that they *requested*
>the information is unlikely to wash.
[...]

ANNOTATED REFERENCES

(All these documents are available on-line. Access information follows.)

=================
law/meritor-v-vinson
=================
This is Meritor Savings Bank FSB v. Vinson. This is the Supreme Court
decision that recognized illegal sexual harassment in the form of a
"hostile environment" at the work place. It is referenced in the two
university speech code decisions.

=================
law/uwm-post-v-u-of-wisconsin
=================
The full text of UWM POST v. U. of Wisconsin. This recent district
court ruling goes into detail about the difference between protected
offensive expression and illegal harassment. It even mentions email.

It concludes: "The founding fathers of this nation produced a
remarkable document in the Constitution but it was ratified only with
the promise of the Bill of Rights.  The First Amendment is central to
our concept of freedom.  The God-given "unalienable rights" that the
infant nation rallied to in the Declaration of Independence can be
preserved only if their application is rigorously analyzed.

The problems of bigotry and discrimination sought to be addressed here
are real and truly corrosive of the educational environment.  But
freedom of speech is almost absolute in our land and the only
restriction the fighting words doctrine can abide is that based on the
fear of violent reaction.  Content-based prohibitions such as that in
the UW Rule, however well intended, simply cannot survive the
screening which our Constitution demands."


=================
law/doe-v-u-of-michigan
=================
This is Doe v. University of Michigan. In this widely referenced
decision, the district judge down struck the University's rules
against discriminatory harassment because the rules were found to be too
broad and too vague.

=================
=================

These document(s) are available by anonymous ftp (the preferred
method) and by email. To get the file(s) via ftp, do an anonymous ftp
to ftp.eff.org (192.88.144.4), and get file(s):

  pub/academic/law/meritor-v-vinson
  pub/academic/law/uwm-post-v-u-of-wisconsin
  pub/academic/law/doe-v-u-of-michigan

To get the file(s) by email, send email to archive-server@eff.org.
Include the line(s) (be sure to include the space before the file
name):

send acad-freedom/law meritor-v-vinson
send acad-freedom/law uwm-post-v-u-of-wisconsin
send acad-freedom/law doe-v-u-of-michigan

--
Carl Kadie -- kadie@cs.uiuc.edu -- University of Illinois at Urbana-Champaign
Newsgroups: comp.org.eff.talk
From: dan@cae.prds.cdx.mot.com (Dan Breslau)
Subject: Re: Re- EFFector Online 3.06- B
Organization: none
Date: Tue, 6 Oct 1992 16:36:23 GMT

mnemonic@eff.org (Mike Godwin) writes:

>Brad Hicks needs to remember that it is possible to have the same facts as
>Hicks, yet disagree with him. Had Pengo, Hess, et al been truly motivated
>by moral opposition to the United States policy, they wouldn't have asked
>for money and drugs for their services.

And you, Mike Godwin, either offer your services to the EFF for free, or
else do not truly support their goals?

(I'm _not_ disagreeing with the rest of the article you wrote, just
pointing out flawed logic here.)

Dan Breslau
dan@codex.com
Disc claimer:  "Hey!  That's my floppy!"

Xref: sparky comp.org.eff.talk:6031 comp.unix.bsd:6537 comp.os.mach:1404 misc.int-property:1052 alt.suit.att-bsdi:374 comp.sys.mac.advocacy:820
From: dave@prc.unisys.com (David Lee Matuszek)
Newsgroups: comp.org.eff.talk,comp.unix.bsd,comp.os.mach,misc.int-property,alt.suit.att-bsdi,comp.sys.mac.advocacy
Subject: Re: Letter asking for help with Apple from the US VP
Date: 29 Sep 92 17:35:05 GMT
Distribution: usa
Organization: Paoli Research Center - Paoli, PA

In article <1992Sep26.163123.24796@rwwa.COM> witr@rwwa.com writes:
>| The
>| patent system exists to serve a specific, useful goal. That goal, as
>| we all know, is to benefit the public good by encouraging innovation.
>| If the system is not meeting its goal, it should be reformed.
>
>Which requires that one show that the system is *not* benefiting the
>public good.  And, of course, since you say:
>
>| It does not matter one whit whether the system meets its goal in theory
>| if the practical effect is different.
>
>You must show that it is failing in practice, not theory.  Which is to say
>that you must show that ``innovation'' has, in practice, been stifled.

Your logic is impeccable.

However, your timing is a bit off.  Computers have been in existence
for a bit over 45 years now, and I think we can all agree that during
this period the rate of software innovation has been phenomenal.
Patent lawyers are only now beginning to get into the act, and it will
take several years before the effects of their involvement become
apparent.

If, as I believe, the effect will be to stifle innovation, do you
think we will respond by saying "Gosh, I guess those laws weren't
such a good idea; better drop them," or do you think we will do it by
spending millions of dollars on patent lawyers?

If it ain't broke, don't fix it.

>-- 
> 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

  --dave

P.S.  The argument is moot anyway.  There's money to be made (mostly by
lawyers) in patenting software.  It will happen.

-- 
And the President put his hand on my shoulder and said: "Dan, 
I _knew_ Spiro Agnew.  He was a friend of mine.  And Dan...  
You're no Spiro Agnew!"
                -- Vice President Dan Quayle
Xref: sparky comp.org.eff.talk:6212 misc.int-property:1122 alt.suit.att-bsdi:440 comp.unix.bsd:6789
From: jkp@cs.HUT.FI (Jyrki Kuoppala)
Subject: Re: Patents:  What they are.  What they aren't.  Other factors.
Reply-To: jkp@cs.HUT.FI (Jyrki Kuoppala)
Organization: Helsinki University of Technology, Finland
Date: Wed, 30 Sep 1992 12:22:25 GMT

>We do! History shows that in the case of RSA the inventors published
>their invention _without_ help from the patent process. Facts:
>
>1. Martin Gardner published RSA in the August 1977 Scientific American.
>
>2. The RSA patent was not filed until December 1977.
>
>By waiting until December 1977 to file a patent, MIT lost any chance it
>might have had for foreign patent rights.

I think it was clearly a catch-22 for them.  If they had _not_
published prior to applying, what chances are there that the patent
would not have been declared secret?

//Jyrki
Newsgroups: comp.org.eff.talk,misc.int-property,alt.suit.att-bsdi,comp.unix.bsd
From: ckd@eff.org (Christopher Davis)
Subject: Re: Patents:  What they are.  What they aren't.  Other factors.
Followup-To: misc.int-property
Organization: Electronic Frontier Foundation Tech Central
	<1992Oct4.212205.28492@blaze.cs.jhu.edu>
	<1992Oct6.075914.19889@netcom.com>
Distribution: usa
Date: Tue, 6 Oct 1992 15:32:48 GMT

Since patents are not free, perhaps you could explain how your
clearinghouse will attract the "garage programmer" who may invent
something that is, in your model, patentable, but doesn't have the money
to patent it so s/he can join the clearinghouse.

Followups to misc.int-property; time to clean up the crossposting.
--
Christopher K. Davis      |       NET.INSIGHTS INTO ARTISTIC CRITICISM:
<ckd@eff.org>   EFF #14   | ``[Y]ou don't cure bad art by locking it all up
System Administrator, EFF | in one museum, you cure it by throwing tomatoes
+1 617 864 0665  [CKD1]   | at bad artists.'' --Barry Shein <bzs@world.std.com>
Newsgroups: comp.org.eff.talk,misc.int-property,alt.suit.att-bsdi
From: alex@otis (The Console DJ)
Subject: Re: EFFector Online 3.06: Bruce Sterling
Organization: Novell Inc
Date: Fri, 2 Oct 1992 23:16:41 GMT

>Civil forfeitures are a serious problem, as is paying informants for
>criminal information (sometimes paying them by failing to prosecute
>them for crimes they have committed.) This problem grows even worse
>when search and seizure are based on hearsay evidence from such a
>"confidential" paid informant whose name never appears in the records.
>
>Bill Vajk
>
>



Wasn't there a thing in the Constitution that gave you the right to face whoever
is accussing you of a crime??   I'm wrong, huh?
-- 
<blah blah Employer blah not blah blah responsible blah blah my blah opinion>