HDTenEightyP/NetNews huggingface dataset:
From: webb+@CS.CMU.EDU (Jon Webb)
Newsgroups: comp.patents
Subject: Re: Dictionary Speller (US4783761) (was Re: Preemptive patents....
Date: 8 Apr 92 09:28:34 GMT
Organization: School of Computer Science, Carnegie Mellon University
Originator: webb@DUCK.WARP.CS.CMU.EDU

In article <4604@cluster.cs.su.oz.au> alg@is.morgan.com (Al Guintu) writes:

   in <4577@cluster.cs.su.oz.au>, webb+@CS.CMU.EDU (Jon Webb) wrote:
   JW>  Yes, and that's exactly the scheme described by Knuth,
   JW>  volume 3, page 486 (start from the top), 1973, as well as
   JW>  many other sources. It's a good balance between time and
   JW>  space. That's why it's so popular for storing
   JW>  dictionaries.

That's what Dan Bernstein said.  I said the opposite; Knuth's method
is the inverse of the patented method.  To quote:

 in the first few levels of the tree.  We can get better performance by
 mixing two strategies, using a trie for the first few characters and
 then switching to some other technique.  For example, E. H.
 Sussenguth, Jr. [CACM 6 (1963), 272-279] has suggested using a
 character-by-character scheme until we reach part of the tree where
 only, say, six or less keys of the file are possible, and then we can
 sequentially run through the short list of remaining keys.  We shall
 see that his ;mixed strategy decreases the number of trie nodes by
 roughly a factor of six, wihtout substantially changing the running time."

However, note that Dan's point is still probably valid -- if someone
tried the inverse idea in 1963 it seems reasonable to suggest that
someone else tried the same idea sometime since then.  But the
reference is not what he represented it to be, and of course the
Patent Office goes by what has been published, not what has been tried
somewhere someplace.

-- J
From: a_rubin@dsg4.dse.beckman.com (Arthur Rubin)
Newsgroups: comp.patents
Subject: Re: A Patent Holder's View of Infringement
Date: 14 Apr 92 07:07:54 GMT
Organization: Beckman Instruments, Inc.

In <4654@cluster.cs.su.oz.au> ritter@cactus.org (Terry Ritter) writes:


> FAQ Infringement Comment

> I have a minor comment to the tiny last section of the FAQ
> item on infringement.  As a patent holder, I view infringement
> very differently than the FAQ item would indicate:

>>(v) Can I build a patented device for my own use and enjoyment?
>>
>>People build infringing items in their sheds all the time, I suppose.  But
>>in most countries including the US, this is no defense to infringement.
>>Activities in sheds are, of course, rarely detected and patent owners
>>can hardly stop what they have not detected.


I am not a lawyer; but, on sci.crypt, it was stated (without
substantiation) that use of a patented algorithm in research INTO HOW THE
ALGORITHM WORKS is permitted.  Is that correct?  If so, it should be in the
FAQ.

--
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.
Ich bin ein Virus.  Mach' mit und kopiere mich in Deine .signature.

[mod- Has anybody some authority on this (eg. even a textbook
etc) as the authority I have doesnt discuss it and I dont really
wish to research this issue..]
From: gtoal@robobar.co.uk (Graham Toal "gtoal@vangogh.cs.berkeley.edu")
Newsgroups: comp.patents
Subject: Re: Patenable v. Unpatentable (2)
Summary: [for man also read woman]
Date: 7 Apr 92 07:11:55 GMT
Organization: Robobar Ltd., Perivale, Middx., ENGLAND.

In article <4586@cluster.cs.su.oz.au> 0001811496@mcimail.com (Carl Oppedahl) writes:
>In contrast, if the idea is covered by the patent claim (i.e. the idea 
>is novel and unobvious), then the patent owner _will_ be able to stop 
>the person who appropriates the idea.

The trouble with this whole shebang is that one man's 'unobvious' is
another man's 'trivial', and is reinvented daily, and taken for granted,
without ever having hear of the patent or the 'original' inventor.

G
--
From: solman@athena.mit.edu (Jason W Solinsky)
Newsgroups: comp.patents
Subject: Re: Dictionary Speller (US4783761)
Date: 8 Apr 92 09:21:20 GMT
Organization: Massachusetts Institute of Technology

As I recall, the one case in which a patent can be given a hearing that could
revoke it, was if somebody brought the patent office an example of prior art. Why
can't this be done with the dictionary speller? If Knuth spelled it out,
revocation should be automatic.

Jason W. Solinsky
From: ed@titipu.meta.com (Edward Reid)
Newsgroups: comp.patents
Subject: Competition v. Monopoly (was Re: The future of comp.patents
Date: 15 Apr 92 10:48:35 GMT
Organization: Metalogic
X-Mailer: uAccess - Macintosh Release: 1.9b1
Content-Type: text
Content-Length: 785

Steven P. Skabrat writes:
> For 99.99999% of the US population what is important is that when someone
> creates or invents something, the inventor can protect that creation
> through the legal process so that others don't steal the result of his
> ingenuity.

Apart from many other problems in Skabrat's claims, this statement is simply
not true.  90% of the US population couldn't care less whether inventors are
protected.  They care whether useful products reach the consumers.  A sound,
neutral survey would probably find the great majority preferring competition
over protection.  Should we eliminate patents entirely to mollify a casually
involved majority?

Edward Reid  (8-}>
  eel:   ed@titipu.meta.com  or  nosc.mil!titipu.meta.com!ed
  snail: PO Box 378/Greensboro FL 32330
From: kim@Software.Mitel.COM (Kim Letkeman)
Newsgroups: comp.patents
Subject: Re: The future of comp.patents
Date: 15 Apr 92 10:53:08 GMT
Organization: MITEL Public Switching, Kanata, Ontario, Canada


In article <4668@cluster.cs.su.oz.au> friedman@gnu.ai.mit.edu (Noah Friedman) writes:

|    99.99999% of the US population doesn't know what's good for the
|    software industry, either.  They don't keep track of research and
|    development (except to the extent that companies advertise their
|    products) so they don't have any idea how software patents will
|    affect the industry (or even their pocketbooks) until they see
|    yet higher prices on the software they want to buy.

Ten years ago, one could purchase a bang-up compiler called Turbo
Pascal for $50. Today, I pay about $130 for the same compiler. But the
functionality is much more than 150% increased. Similar examples exist
in every area of software.

I don't think anyone in the computer world can legitimately complain
about software prices, even in today's (alledgedly) software patent
riddled world.  The people who seem to complain the most are those who
apparently want software for free or those who want to give it away.

|    Since it is people who work in the trade (i.e. programmers) who
|    complain the most about the effect of patents in the computer
|    industry, I consider it a legitimate concern, since these people
|    know their work and know they'd rather spend time programming
|    than going to court.  I think that within this subset of the
|    population, the percentage of people who are concerned about this
|    matter is substantially larger than you claim (alas, I don't have
|    any more exact numbers than you do).

I think we would all have heard about it if programmers were spending
time in court on patent challenges. It just isn't so. I have not heard
of a single instance, although I'm sure there must be a few. But as a
percentage of the programming population the number is I'm sure
miniscule.

Also, a patent stops nobody from "spending time programming".  Code
anything you like. Just don't try cutting into someone else's market,
either with free or with your own marketed software.

This makes so much practical sense (reinforced by Terry Ritter's
recent article discussing the patent holder's point of view) that I
can't see why this point is always raised in attacking software
patents. It just isn't relevant.
--
Kim Letkeman	kim@Software.Mitel.COM
From: rpw3@rigden.wpd.sgi.com (Rob Warnock)
Newsgroups: comp.patents
Subject: Re: Roger E Billings and File Server Patent
Date: 11 Apr 92 07:16:54 GMT
Organization: Silicon Graphics, Inc.  Mountain View, CA

ernest@suntan.tandem.com.AU (Ernest Hua) writes:
+---------------
| Apparently, this guy named Roger E. Billings claims that he invented the 
| File Server concept and patented it (4,714,989).  The patent was granted
| in December 1987 (applied for in February 1982).  He claims he did most 
| of his work during the late 1970s and early 1980s.
| 
| Is this guy for real?  How can the concept of a file server be patented?
+---------------

It could be patented, I suppose, but probably not by this guy. Read the
article "WFS: The Woodstock File Server" by somebody at Xerox. I think it
was in the late 70's. It was *published*, so a Feb '82 filing date would
be far too late.

Also, there had already been published articles in BSTJ (the famous "Unix"
issue, July/August 1978?) about diskless LSI-11's which used a PDP-11/45
as a file server.

Unless there is something specifically unique to his *implementation*,
his patent is worthless.


-Rob

-----
Rob Warnock, MS-9U/510		rpw3@sgi.com
Silicon Graphics, Inc.		(415)335-1673
2011 N. Shoreline Blvd.
Mountain View, CA  94039-7311
From: jimad@microsoft.com (Jim ADCOCK)
Newsgroups: comp.patents
Subject: Re: FAQ 6- Infringement
Date: 7 Apr 92 07:04:16 GMT
Organization: Microsoft Corp.

In article <4489@cluster.cs.su.oz.au> patents@cs.su.oz.au writes:
|In copyright, independent creation is a complete defense.  If you sit down
|to the typewriter and happen to bang out the text of "Hunt for Red October",
|having never seen Clancy's book, it will be a defense to Clancy's lawsuit
|that you independently created it.  The monkeys and the typewriters, etc.

Its only a copyright defense if people are willing to believe it.  
I for one would not believe it no matter how many witnesses and/or 
documents you present to make your case.

|(v) Can I build a patented device for my own use and enjoyment?
|
|People build infringing items in their sheds all the time, I suppose.  But
|in most countries including the US, this is no defense to infringement.  
|Activities in sheds are, of course, rarely detected and patent owners 
|can hardly stop what they have not detected.

However, I believe building a patented device *purely* for experimental
and/or educational value is explicitly permitted? Yes/No?
From: jimad@microsoft.com (Jim ADCOCK)
Newsgroups: comp.patents
Subject: Re: designing around (was Patentable v. Unpatentable)
Date: 9 Apr 92 06:23:54 GMT
Organization: Microsoft Corp.

In article <4513@cluster.cs.su.oz.au> 0001811496@mcimail.com (Carl Oppedahl) writes:
....
|If in "means" form, the element will be interpreted to mean 
|the structure that was given in the specification for that
|element, and its equivalents.  In the specification, then, the
|wily patent lawyer will be sure to have given all sorts of input
|devices, plus a self-serving statement that one skilled in the
|art could effortlessly name zillions of other input devices
|which, if employed, would not deviate from the spirit of the
|invention.  The set of element structures in the patent, 
|unioned with the set of equivalents thereof, will presumably
|include all the ways the would-be non-infringer would try to
|alter the input device to avoid the exact wording of the claim.

However, do remember that no matter how broadly the claims are written,
they are always implicitly read in the context of the claimed field of
invention.  Thus an ice cream maker shouldn't have to worry that a
rubber manufacturer has a rubber-making patent with broad claims,
and [probably] a computer user doesn't have to worry that a typewriter
manufacturer has secured a typewriter patent with broad typewriter-spelling-
correction claims.  The courts have been *very* negative on inventors trying
to expand their claims outside the arena of the original field of the 
granted patent.
From: sps@email.sp.unisys.com (Steven P. Skabrat)
Newsgroups: comp.patents
Subject: The future of comp.patents
Date: 11 Apr 92 07:29:14 GMT


Did I stumble into alt.politics by accident here? I've been reading this
newsgroup for a few weeks now thinking I might actually learn something.
I must admit I have read some enlightening postings concerning patents.
But the majority of the traffic here is leftist claptrap propaganda about
how the sky will fall down if we allow software patents.  This alarmist
stuff is getting old.  For those who have that free software/I'm a
programmer I do as I like/let everybody own all software
communally/socialist/leftist intellectual bent to this subject I suggest
you wake up and smell the coffee -- you guys are in the minuscule
minority of the population who:
1) cares about programmers
2) cares about programmers having the freedom to write a computer program
 anyway they want.

For 99.99999% of the US population what is important is that when someone
creates or invents something, the inventor can protect that creation
through the legal process so that others don't steal the result of his
ingenuity.  This result gives people the incentive to create, invent,
produce, etc.  Call it capitalistic greed, conservatism, whatever.  But
thats what the United States copyright and patent systems are based on.
Its worked for over 200 years and look where our country is
technologically because of it.  So I seriously doubt that a handful of
academics arguing about patentable subject matter is really going to
influence the status quo without a more credible and compelling position.
The sky is falling tactic will not change the bureacratic inertia of the
PTO and the CAFC.

Instead can we discuss things like:

Does anybody know about the Doctrine of Equivalents ever being applied
to a hardware/software configuration?  Like if I have a hardware suite
that is patented, would I be infringing under the doctrine if I replace
some portion of the hardware with firmware or software?

Comments? Questions? Flames?
From: friedman@gnu.ai.mit.edu (Noah Friedman)
Newsgroups: comp.patents
Subject: Re: The future of comp.patents
Date: 14 Apr 92 06:50:51 GMT
Organization: Free Software Foundation, 675 Mass Ave. Cambridge, MA 02139

In article <4656@cluster.cs.su.oz.au> sps@email.sp.unisys.com (Steven P. Skabrat) writes:
>stuff is getting old.  For those who have that free software/I'm a
>programmer I do as I like/let everybody own all software
>communally/socialist/leftist intellectual bent to this subject I suggest
>you wake up and smell the coffee -- you guys are in the minuscule
>minority of the population who:
>1) cares about programmers
>2) cares about programmers having the freedom to write a computer program
> anyway they want.
>
>For 99.99999% of the US population what is important is that when someone
>creates or invents something, the inventor can protect that creation
>through the legal process so that others don't steal the result of his
>ingenuity.  

   99.99999% of the US population doesn't know what's good for the software
industry, either.  They don't keep track of research and development
(except to the extent that companies advertise their products) so they
don't have any idea how software patents will affect the industry (or even
their pocketbooks) until they see yet higher prices on the software they
want to buy. 

   Since it is people who work in the trade (i.e. programmers) who complain
the most about the effect of patents in the computer industry, I consider
it a legitimate concern, since these people know their work and know they'd
rather spend time programming than going to court.  I think that within
this subset of the population, the percentage of people who are concerned
about this matter is substantially larger than you claim (alas, I don't
have any more exact numbers than you do).

>             This result gives people the incentive to create, invent,
>produce, etc.  Call it capitalistic greed, conservatism, whatever.  But
>thats what the United States copyright and patent systems are based on.

   The patent system was created to encourage innovation and creativity,
not to protect any intrinsic "right" to intellectual property.  (If there
were such a thing, why would patents and copyrights *ever* expire?)  I have
never seen a lack of innovation in the software industry or in the field of
computer science in general.  Why do we suddenly need patents when the
system had been working just fine?

   The status quo has been changed because of a misinterpretation of the
Diamond vs. Diehr case and (IMHO, unethical) corporate greed.  If it
weren't for a plentiful supply of the latter, we wouldn't be in this mess.

---
Noah Friedman <friedman@prep.ai.mit.edu>
From: patents@cs.su.oz.au
Newsgroups: comp.patents
Subject: FAQ 8- (Short) History of Patents
Date: 10 Apr 92 07:36:49 GMT


[Disclaimer- The information presented below should not be
relied upon. Although presented in good faith, readers should
consult a patent lawyer or the like before making any
decisions that may have economic consequences.]

Frequently Asked Question List Under Construction
=================================================

Proceed With Caution !!!
All Comments & contributions MOST welcome
Short and concise please...



1: What is a Patent 
2: 
3: Laymans Books
4: Patents cf Copyright
5:
6: Infringement
7: 
8: History of Patents. [This Post]
9:
10: FTP information
11:
12:
13: Priority Rights
14: Prior Art and Publication Rules
15:
16:
17: International Conventions (PCT & EPC?)
18:
19:
20:




[mod- the following is provided for comment for future
formation of this FAQ question.]

8. (Short) History of Patents
==============================

The origins of the patent system are intertwined with the
words "Letters Patent" which historically were defined to be
the exclusive privilege conferred by the sovereign or state of
selling some commodity or conducting some trade. 

During the Middle Ages these monopolies were granted by the
Crown for many reasons, including the establishment of a trade
or industry, protection of a league or guild against
competition, a reward for coming under royal favor or, also,
for efforts of genius.

These monopoly grants of "Letters Patent" were abused by the
Crown and turned into a form of revenue raising in return for
increased restrictions on citizens with most staple products being
subject to monopoly. 

Eventually the situation led to the English Parliament
enacting the Statute of Monopolies in 1623 by which all form
of monopolies, with an important exception,  were abolished. 
This exception related to Letters Patent granted for the
introduction of 'any manner of new manufacture, within this
realm'. These monopolies were to last for a term of 14 years,
the traditional time for 2 periods of apprenticeship to expire.


Subsequently complex procedural requirements led to the
formation of the requirement for a specification outlining the
invention and later, the need to claim the invention in a
claim like form.


In the United States, the founders of the Constitution
recognized the value of patents in Section 8 of the US Constitution:

	The Congress shall have 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;
From: drw@nevanlinna.mit.edu (Dale R. Worley)
Newsgroups: comp.patents
Subject: Re: DES patented?
Date: 17 Apr 92 03:26:58 GMT
Organization: MIT Dept. of Tetrapilotomy, Cambridge, MA, USA

In article <4688@cluster.cs.su.oz.au> nevries@cc.ruu.nl (Nico de Vries.) writes:
   Does anyone know if DES is patented? If not is anyone outside the US
   allowed to sell DES software (including to the US)?

DES is based on a cryptographic system invented by IBM called
"Lucifer".  IBM has (at least) some US patents on Lucifer, according
to press reports -- they agreed to give them up if the US government
adopted Lucifer as an encryption standard.  I suspect that IBM
obtained patents on Lucifer in other countries as well.  However, the
patents may have exipred by now, since the Lucifer work was done in
the 1970's.

Dale Worley		Dept. of Math., MIT		drw@math.mit.edu

Newsgroups: comp.editors
From: peter@ferranti.com (Peter da Silva)
Subject: Re: "c," in vi
Organization: Xenix Support, FICC
Date: Tue, 7 Apr 1992 17:54:24 GMT

Sure looks like a bug to me. Elvis doesn't emulate it.
-- 
/F { dup /Courier findfont exch scalefont setfont } def /S { show } def /L { 12
mul 36 add 36 exch moveto } def 24 F 2 L (Have you hugged your wolf today?) S
12 F 1 L (Peter da Silva, Ferranti International Controls Corporation) S
0 L (Sugar Land, TX  77487-5012;  +1 713 274 5180) S
From: stuart@genethon.fr (Stuart Pook)
Newsgroups: comp.editors
Subject: sam by Rob Pike
Keywords: sam, Pike, X11, SunOS4.1.x
Date: 14 Apr 92 08:27:20 GMT
Organization: Genethon -- CEPHB Human Polymorphism Study Center, Paris, France
Originator: stuart@genethon.genethon.fr


Has anybody out there used the bitmap display based text editor sam?
Does it work well under X11R5, does it work on Sun Sparcs running
SunOS 4.1.x, which version do you have and where did you get it?

If you are interested sam is available from the AT&T Toolchest for
$US100 (email catrina@uel.co.uk).  I quote the sales blurb "sam is
unique in its comfortable union of an interactive cut-and-paste
editing style with a powerful command language based on the
composition of regular expressions.  It may be controlled by mouse
for convenient general editing, or by typing ASCII commands in an
ed-like language for doing repetitive or complex tasks."

Thanks
Stuart Pook    (stuart@genethon.fr)
From: bj_stedm@csd.brispoly.ac.uk (Bruce Stedman)
Newsgroups: comp.editors
Subject: Re: Buggy vi's
Summary: My bugs with SVR3.1
Keywords: vi, bug
Date: 9 Apr 92 22:09:01 GMT
Organization: Bristol Polyversity

On the subject of bad implementations of vi's, the stuff we have here
is pretty bad.

SunOS Release 4.1.2: Vi version SVR3.1
or
OS/MP 4.1A: Vi version SVR3.1

Anyway, it does all sorts of horrible things when I'm not expecting it:

Always, after performing a 'v' on something at the end of a line
(lower cases a word, I have similar for UPPER CASE and Mixed Case)
it won't let be go back along the line, no matter how much I hit
escape. Soln - go up or down 1 line then return to previous line

Says I'm not the owner of a file and won't let me write to it (even
though I am of course) Soln - write to a different file name

Sometimes, after some sort of horrible thing (I can't remember what,
but it is something to do with saving to a file) it will put a copy of,
say, the delete buffer on the end of the file on the screen, but act as
though it isn't there (Yes it line-numbers it correctly, but I can't
move (in)to the rogue text). Soln - write the file

A common one is I delete something into the buffer and it forgets it has
got it in there (I can't replace it). It remembers something from a
little while ago, which is of no use at all. Soln - there isn't one.
Try doing an undo, but this sometimes fails as below.

The most common of all, which has actually happened whilst writing
this, is that it forgets how much to undo. (I tried undoing a 'C' I had
performed on the 'm' in 'them' below, and it undid all the input as far
back as the previous paragraph). Soln - undo the undo and manually undo
the thing you wanted to undo in the 1st place.

It also, when I want to move text (delete, put) says 'Cannot put inside
Global/macro (or whatever is was)' and won't let me put the text down
again. Undo then does as above, and usually undoes to the last 'v'
command as mentioned 1st. This also happened to me whilst writing this
article. Soln - as in previous paragraph

Note - these are just the symptoms, I havn't had the time or
inclination to trouble-shoot the causes and try to fix them.

The possible causes for some could be my case macros. Here they are:
map v mzwbi{z^[ea%}^[:s/{z^V^V\(.*^V^V\)%}/^V^V\L^V^V\1^M`zw
map V mzwbi{z^[ea%}^[:s/{z^V^V\(.*^V^V\)%}/^V^V\U^V^V\1^M`zw
map K mzwbi{z^[ea%}^[:s/{z^V^V\(.^V^V\)^V^V\(.*^V^V\)%}/
 cont-	^V^V\U^V^V\1^V^V\L^V^V\2^M`zw
and here is my usual set list:
set nomesg ai nu aw ic wm=1 noslow ap eb redraw

BJS

PS - No, I'm not going to start using emacs