HDTenEightyP/NetNews huggingface dataset:
From: john.eichler@grapevine.lrk.ar.us (John Eichler)
Newsgroups: comp.org.eff.talk
Subject: Re: Patents:  What they a
Date: 4 Oct 92 17:41:00 GMT
Reply-To: john.eichler@grapevine.lrk.ar.us (John Eichler)
Organization: The GrapeVine BBS *** N. Little Rock, AR *** (501) 753-8121

to: brnstnd@nyu.edu

>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.

I find this very interesting.  What is the definition of a "mathematical
problem"?  If I develop an algorithm which deals with logical
manipulation of bytes is this considered "mathematical" because it has
Boolean Algebra concepts being used?

I developed a rather unique special application compression algorithm
which was useful for its intended purpose.  I checked with a patent
attorney and he said it wasn't patentable because it was just an
algorithm.  He said that if I designed a piece of hardware to accomplish
a physical application of the technique that I could probably get a
patent on that.  I said that the technique could be implemented in
either hardware or software so the patenting of a specific box to
perform the compression/decompression would not cover others doing the
same thing with software alone.

If it would not be too much trouble, could you please clarify what you
said in more detail.

John
---
 . SM 1.06 ----- . When advice is free, there is no guarantee!
                                                                                                                               
Xref: sparky comp.org.eff.talk:6261 comp.admin.policy:1212 alt.censorship:7853 alt.comp.acad-freedom.talk:3058 alt.society.civil-liberty:6144 alt.politics.usa.misc:81
From: jkp@cs.HUT.FI (Jyrki Kuoppala)
Newsgroups: comp.org.eff.talk,comp.admin.policy,alt.censorship,alt.comp.acad-freedom.talk,alt.society.civil-liberty,alt.politics.usa.misc
Subject: Supreme Court and U.S. Constitution
Date: 5 Oct 92 14:44:37 GMT
Reply-To: jkp@cs.HUT.FI (Jyrki Kuoppala)
Organization: Helsinki University of Technology, Finland

In article <1992Oct4.114434.16434@newstand.syr.edu>, greeny@top (J. S. Greenfield) writes:
>Come on now, this discussion has really become silly.  IMNSHO, there
>is no basis for the regulation of "obscenity" in the Constitution.

OK - the discussion has gotten to a disagreement on semantics, but
what I'm saying here is that the semantics are important.  Ie. if I
(not a lawyer etc.) said without qualification that "obscenity is
regulable under the U.S. Constitution" it would seem to me to be an
implicit admittance that the SC interpretation is correct.  I
understand that from a legal reference point (language used among
lawyers etc.) the meaning is clear and few will see such admittance
but I am saying that in political connections it would be a good idea
to not implicitly support _all_ the interpretations.

>But that ain't the way the SC sees it--and I wouldn't think of making
>the above statement without prefacing it with the IMNSHO.

I hope I have expressed myself more clearly now.

//Jyrki
Xref: sparky comp.org.eff.talk:5954 misc.int-property:1019 alt.suit.att-bsdi:341 comp.unix.bsd:6407
From: juola@bruno.cs.colorado.edu (Patrick Juola)
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: 26 Sep 92 23:40:00 GMT
Article-I.D.: colorado.1992Sep26.234000.11330
Distribution: usa
Organization: University of Colorado, Boulder

In article <1992Sep26.161204.24573@rwwa.COM> witr@rwwa.com writes:
>A patent can be granted to ``whoever invents or discovers any new and
>usefull [sic] process, machine, manufacture, or composition of matter, or any
>new and usefull [sic] improvement thereof''.  (which is quoted from the older
>patent law, but is consistent, I believe, with the intent of the newer
>law).  Later sections discuss what cannot be patented, and discuss the
>obviousness issue along with other restrictions.
>
>First, let me hypothesize that there are two anti-patent points of
>view, namely:  1) Patents cannot apply to software, and 2) patents
>should not apply to software.
>
>It seems to me that to claim that patents *intrinsically* cannot, in
>law, apply to software one must claim either:
>
>  a) Software cannot be both of new, and usefull [sic].
>  b) All software is obvious.
>
>It is difficult for be to swallow either of these claims.  Perhaps
>you or someone has a convincing argument supporting them?

Or, c) software is neither a process, a machine, a manufacture, or
a composition of matter.  It's certainly not a machine or a composition
of matter.  Nor is it a process, as software can be sold as physical
and separable objects (and, in fact, is frequently required to be sold
that way -- i.e. single-user or CPU licenses.)

Software is therefore intrinsically not patentable, as it does not
fall within the aegis of patent law.
Xref: sparky comp.org.eff.talk:6177 misc.int-property:1112 alt.suit.att-bsdi:430 comp.unix.bsd:6742
From: terry@cs.weber.edu (A Wizard of Earth C)
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: 2 Oct 92 18:11:25 GMT
Article-I.D.: fcom.1992Oct2.181125.1247
Distribution: usa
Organization: Weber State University  (Ogden, UT)

In article <BvI86A.231@rahul.net> dhesi@rahul.net (Rahul Dhesi) writes:
>In <1992Oct2.142625.9158@rwwa.COM> witr@rwwa.COM (Robert Withrow) writes:
>
>>...at no time can you separate ``data'' from *some* physical [phenomenon]...
>
>Quantum mechanics and related fields of physics have long established
>that "information" has qualities that are completely independent of the
>medium in which the information is embodied.  And the medium in which
>the information is embodied can be as intangible as a beam of light, or
>as abstract as the motion of a particle (not the particles itself), or
>as nonphysical as the cordinates of a nonexistent point in an arbitrary
>co-ordinate system.

You are confusing "data" the "algorithm" (vulcanization) with data the material
being operated upon (raw rubber).

The embodiment of infomation creates an artifact, which is physical in
nature.  To posit otherwise is to take the that causality may be
violated, for instance, by radio waves in a reactive medium if their
wavefronts exceed the speed of light, to take your analog to it's
logical physical conclusion.

I you have read P. A. M. Dirac or Freeman Dyson, you know the definition of
"information" for the purposes of quantum mechanics isn't the same as the
"data" under discussion ("Copenhagen Theory?  Bah Humbug!"8-)).

If I can only associate data with a physical phenomenon within h-bar/2,
that's good enough to call an embodiment (as good as a tractor is an
embodiment of "tractorness", and with exactly the same accuracy).

>Roughly the same is true of energy, of which heat is but one form.

But you seem to be comparing "burning" with "oil" when you compare "algorithm"
with "data".  Oil isn't patentable, but methods of burning it are.


					Terry Lambert
					terry@icarus.weber.edu
					terry_lambert@novell.com
---
Any opinions in this posting are my own and not those of my present
or previous employers.
-- 
-------------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                        "I have an 8 user poetic license" - me
 Get the 386bsd FAQ from agate.berkeley.edu:/pub/386BSD/386bsd-0.1/unofficial
-------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Xref: sparky comp.org.eff.talk:6167 comp.unix.bsd:6727 comp.os.mach:1426 misc.int-property:1107 alt.suit.att-bsdi:425 comp.sys.mac.advocacy:1010
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: 1 Oct 92 19:26:11 GMT
Followup-To: comp.org.eff.talk
Distribution: usa

macrakis@osf.org (Stavros Macrakis) writes:
>This is an incorrect analogy.  I said that many patents are not
>_enforceable_, not that they are not _enforced_.  The analogy to
>speeding tickets would be that most speeding tickets were thrown out
>if you challenged them in court.

Ah, that's an excellent analogy.   Like speeding tickets, the defendant in
a patent case is considered guilty until proven innocent (at least insofar
as the patent's validity is concerned).   It is presumed that if the patent
office granted a patent, there is no prior art and the technique is not
obvious, so a dependant in a patent lawsuit must prove to a technically
illiterate audience (a judge and jurors) that the patent office made a
mistake.   This is not an easy thing to do, and it shouldn't be surprising
that a number of the patents that have been bandied about here as being
"obvious" have been challenged in court to no avail.

				_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
Newsgroups: comp.org.eff.talk
From: gtoal@ibmpcug.co.uk (Graham Toal)
Newsgroups: comp.org.eff.talk
Subject: Re: This echo?
Date: 27 Sep 92 18:54:48 GMT
Organization: The IBM PC User Group, UK.

In article <3334.2AC4C488@puddle.fidonet.org> David.Heiney@f20.n112.z1.fidonet.org (David Heiney) writes:
>
>What is this ECHO?  It seems to be findonet... but also looks like internet. 
What is this ECHO?  It seems to be findonet... but also looks like internet. 

>It is called "Internet-Link" on this board.
It is called "Internet-Link" on this board.

>Touch mirror
Greetings!  You have stumbled into a maze of twisted little Internet groups,
all alike!

G
-- 
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.
Date: Tue, 29 Sep 92 08:08:29 GMT
Organization: Netcom - Online Communication Services (408 241-9760 guest)
Distribution: usa

In article <id.W3NT.1JL@ferranti.com> peter@ferranti.com (peter da silva) writes:

>The question is, how do you identify which lines of code contain inventions:
>software systems are orders of magnitude more complex than any other class of
>inventions. 

This is simply not true. Complex factories and refineries have
thousands, even hundreds of thousands of components in them. Aircraft
and automobiles, even the physical electronics in computers are
increadibly complex in terms of their smallest patentable components
and processes.

A *simple* program is thousands of lines long, and each line has
>the potential of violating a patent. How do you determine if it does or not?
>Perform a thousand patent searches? 

No, it is much easier than that, do one search of a patent database
looking for one thousand things.  And this is a lot easier than a
single patent search because in this case you are merely looking for
the presence of a patent, not trying to prove the lack of prior art by
its absence.  Or you could adopt risk reduction strategies of other
industries: Use algorithms that are published (Knuth, et al) that
makes them part of the prior art. Or search the patent archives
upfront and license whatever you need (and saving you the time to
re-invent it).  Buy your programming "objects" from a supplier who
takes the risk and expends the effort for you. Or form a clearing
house (Radio stations handle more licensed intellectual property every
day than a programmer is likely to write in a year!) Every other
industry that has faced the licensing of hundreds or thousands of
pieces of intellectual property has found low cost solutions other
than overturning the intellectual property law itself.  How come we in
software can't learn cooperative strategies to solve these problems too?
>
>> This is certainly one way to find out.  This disturbs people (I 
>> wonder why ;-) ).  But it is no different from a guy who invents a
>> (say) boat-cleaning widget.
>
>A boat-cleaning widget is unlikely to use more than a handful of potentially
>patentable processes and components.

How about the guys who develop a complex chemical process? Or who
design an airplane?  Or the home electronics hobbyist putting together
thousands of componets over a year? They can do it, but software
developers can't?  

Software patents may have their problems, but the fact that some
software developers would rather solve a software problem than solve a
business problem like licensing seems to me to be one of the poorest
-- 

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: fkittred@spchp11.BBN.COM (Fletcher Kittredge)
Newsgroups: comp.org.eff.talk,comp.unix.bsd,comp.os.mach,misc.int-property,comp.sys.mac.advocacy
Subject: Re: Letter asking for help with Apple from the US VP
Date: 30 Sep 92 20:13:59
Organization: Bolt Beranek and Newman Inc., 10 Molton Street, Cambridge, MA
	02138
Distribution: usa
	<1992Sep28.182539.28418@rwwa.COM> <1992Sep29.164849.2966@cs.yale.edu>
	<1992Sep30.131009.2798@rwwa.COM>
NNTP-Posting-Host: spchp11.bbn.com
In-reply-to: witr@rwwa.COM's message of 30 Sep 92 13:10:09 GMT
To:  witr@rwwa.COM (Robert Withrow)
Follow-Up: alt.flame


comp.os.mach is a technical newsgroup.  Please take this discussion
elsewhere.

regards,
fletcher
--
/* Fletcher Kittredge
 * BBN Software Products
 * 150 CambridgePark Dr,  Cambridge, MA. 02140
 * 617-USE-FINK  /  fkittred@bbn.com  /  fkittred@das.harvard.edu
 */
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 07:59:14 GMT

In article <1992Oct4.212205.28492@blaze.cs.jhu.edu> arromdee@jyusenkyou.cs.jhu.edu (Ken Arromdee) writes:
>Given a list of songs and a list of songs with different property rights, it's
>easy to look the first up in the second.  Doing so for lines of code is a lot
>harder; the patent may affect any subset of the lines of code, and you can't
>just check off "lessee, this line of code isn't patented, neither is this, etc."

This is precisely why you don't have to create play lists in the
example of a patent clearing house I gave.  You write your code,
collecte your revenues and pay a small portion of your revenues as
clearinghouse fees. You don't have to search anything.  Of course, if
you think that you can save some effort be reusing something that the
clearing house has you might just get some extra benefit from the
clearinghouse besides patent suit protection.  But that would be up to
you.

-- 

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
From: mellon@ncd.com (Ted Lemon)
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: 2 Oct 92 18:45:34 GMT
Followup-To: comp.org.eff.talk
Distribution: usa

alex@otis (The Console DJ) writes:
>Does anyone here know about patent-pools? "Sure you could take us to court but
>you are using 3 of our patents now and that makes us even."  I havn't heard
>of this aspect from anyone.
Actually, several people have mentioned it in passing, as if it were so
obvious that it didn't need to be explained.   However, that was probably
a mistake - it's not really that obvious.

Patent pools work really well for large companies that do a lot of research.
However, they don't work so well for startup companies, which generally don't
start out with any patents.   A common (and, I think, legitimate) fear is that
one major effect of software patents in the long term will be to freeze out
innovation on the part of small companies.

				_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
Xref: sparky comp.org.eff.talk:6229 misc.int-property:1129 alt.suit.att-bsdi:447 comp.unix.bsd:6819
From: lafollet@astro.ocis.temple.edu (Paul Lafollette)
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 19:44:50 GMT
Distribution: usa
Organization: Temple University
X-Newsreader: Tin 1.1 PL5

Robert Withrow (witr@rwwa.COM) wrote:
: 
: All of this hand-wringing about the 
: number of <whatever> == number of potential
: patent infringements is largely absurd.  It is like claiming that one
: must, when building an airplane, patent-search every nut, bolt, washer, wire,
: shim, grease, and whatnot, *and* every *combination* of nuts, bolts, washers,
: wires, shims, greases, and whatnots.
: 

Yes. That is what scares the hell out of some small developers of software.
Implementing a cursor by XOR'ing with the display memory is ONE LINE OF CODE!
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.
:-- 
: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

Paul LaFollette
Xref: sparky comp.org.eff.talk:6190 comp.admin.policy:1174 soc.college:4101
From: brad@optilink.UUCP (Brad Yearwood)
Newsgroups: comp.org.eff.talk,comp.admin.policy,soc.college
Subject: Re: Banned Computer Material 1992
Date: 3 Oct 92 02:53:02 GMT
Organization: Optilink Corporation, Petaluma, CA

In article <1992Oct1.173240.7942@glas.rtsg.mot.com>, waider@glas.rtsg.mot.com (Ronan Waide) writes:
# 
# In the University of Limerick, Ireland, there was a security incident involving
# a user who had the process name "Baader". Subsequent to his "trial" and
# expulsion from the college for a year, another student set his process name to
# "Baader" and promptly found himself disusered.

What is the significance of "Baader"?  What if your name happens to be Baader?
(I once worked with someone with that name.)  How can the EC survive if what
is a perfectly good name in one part is a banned epithet in another part? 
Does invoking this name cause giant chickens to issue forth from cracks in
the Earth, or termination of pregnancy, or what?

Also, from Kadie's original post:

# All email or Netnews articles that "bring discredit" to the *University
# of Texas* or its Computer Science Department"

"Bring discredit."  This is truly precious.  Never before has the mindset of
the institutional bureaucrat been so starkly delineated in so few words.

This statement would itself, to any reasonable person, bring discredit to the
institution.  Who shall be punished if Kadie's post appears at UT?  Or does
UT lack even one reasonable person?

What if latent discredit exists because of some undisclosed act or policy?
Is there something special about email and netnews, that they should be
particularly chilled as a means of disclosing potentially discrediting acts,
and thereby _bringing_ the discredit?

Brad "Baader than you wanna be" Yearwood  brad@optilink.com
Petaluma, CA


Xref: sparky comp.org.eff.talk:6041 comp.unix.bsd:6546 comp.os.mach:1406 misc.int-property:1060 alt.suit.att-bsdi:382 comp.sys.mac.advocacy:824
From: brnstnd@nyu.edu (D. J. Bernstein)
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 20:54:13 GMT
Organization: IR

In article <v_+pvad.mcgregor@netcom.com> mcgregor@netcom.com (Scott Mcgregor) writes:
> More imporantly, would IBM and
> Unisys have done so? Might we still not have LZW if there were not
> sufficient incentives for commercialization.

All the big corporations had huge research departments and thriving
technical journals long before patents on computer-related inventions
began to appear.

> Clearly IBM and Unisys are in a
> better position to provide an innovative new product to a large market
> than an individual like Mr. Bernstein.

This is not clear at all. The inventions we're talking about came to
market through _publications_, a resource that I can take advantage of
just as easily as an IBM employee. It's not as if IBM introduced a
product using LZW. The researchers simply published what they were
doing. The time was ripe for LZW; multiple groups discovered it and
published it. There is _absolutely no advantage_ to the patent system
here.

> Perhaps LZW would be widely
> used only by "hobbyists" and a "hacker elite" rather than being in use
> in many commercial modems and disk drive compression systems.

There are more than a million computers running software derived from
``compress,'' no thanks to Unisys. This is a ``hacker elite''?

---Dan
Xref: sparky comp.org.eff.talk:6189 comp.unix.bsd:6750 comp.os.mach:1427 misc.int-property:1113 alt.suit.att-bsdi:431 comp.sys.mac.advocacy:1040
From: gthaker@fergie.dnet.ge.com (Gautam H. Thaker)
Newsgroups: comp.org.eff.talk,comp.unix.bsd,comp.os.mach,misc.int-property,alt.suit.att-bsdi,comp.sys.mac.advocacy
Subject: NFS for Mach 3.0 on 486 PCs
Date: 1 Oct 92 21:26:48 GMT
	<MACRAKIS.92Sep25105810@lakatos.osf.org>
	<1992Sep25.195032.2005@csc.ti.com>
	<MACRAKIS.92Sep29132712@lakatos.osf.org>
Distribution: usa
Organization: /home/gthaker/.organization

We have several 486-50 PCs with 32 Mb memory running Mach 3.0 and the
single server Unix. Is it possible at all to run NFS on these machines?
I understand 386BSD has NFS support; could something be used from there?

Any hints welcome, I have lost track of status of NFS support on Mach 3.0.

Gautam H. Thaker (gthaker@atl.ge.com) 609-866-6412 (fax x6397. Dialcom 8-777)
GE Adv. Tech. Lab., MS 145-2; Route 38; Moorestown, NJ 08057.  767-4396 (home)
--
Gautam H. Thaker 
Xref: sparky comp.org.eff.talk:6121 misc.int-property:1093 alt.suit.att-bsdi:413 comp.unix.bsd:6680