HDTenEightyP/NetNews huggingface dataset:
From: ckd@eff.org (Christopher Davis)
Subject: Re: Patents:  What they are.  What they aren't.  Other factors.
Organization: Electronic Frontier Foundation Tech Central
	<1992Sep23.210820.18867@gvl.unisys.com>
	<1992Sep24.140807.20755@rwwa.COM>
	<1992Sep25.185314.8872@gvl.unisys.com>
	<1992Sep26.161204.24573@rwwa.COM>
Distribution: usa
Date: Sat, 26 Sep 1992 22:49:15 GMT

DLM> == dave@prc.unisys.com (David Lee Matuszek)
RW>  == Robert Withrow <witr@rwwa.COM> 

 DLM> But as yet I have absolutely no reason to believe that patent laws
 DLM> will be properly applied to software.  Zero.  None.

 RW> I agree with you.  But the problem I have is that I believe in providing
 RW> protection for intellectual property.  My reasons for believing this are
 RW> the same as those stated in the Constitution.  If something like patents
 RW> are not available to software writers then the only avaliable protection
 RW> (unless you eliminate property rights en-toto) is secrecy.  Secrecy is
 RW> a BAD THING for the advancement of state of the art.  People seem to
 RW> forget that the protection provided by a patent is given in exchange
 RW> for the *disclosure* of the thing being patented.  After the *limited*
 RW> time this protection is granted, *anyone* can use the patented thing.
 RW> And during the period of the protection the public has access to the
 RW> information in the patent to extent the state of the art.

Software *already* has copyright protection, and would even if software
patents dried up and blew away tomorrow.  That said, the whole point of
software is that it is inherently published in some form, even if only
object code inside a PROM; if I have a rubber-soled shoe, I may not be
able to reverse-engineer the vulcanization process, but if I have a
microprocessor-controlled sole-pattern changer that uses XOR to make
pretty patterns in my footprints, I can always pop the PROM into a
socket on my Banana Jr. 6000.

By definition, software "secrets" can't "die with their creator" in the
same way that chemical processes, special machinery, and the like do.
--
Christopher Davis   | ]CALL -151       
<ckd@eff.org>       | *300: 20 DD FB 60
System Administrator| *3D0G            
EFF +1 617 864 0665 | ]CALL 768        
Xref: sparky comp.org.eff.talk:5980 misc.int-property:1024 alt.suit.att-bsdi:348
From: rlk@underprize.think.com (Robert Krawitz)
Newsgroups: comp.org.eff.talk,misc.int-property,alt.suit.att-bsdi
Subject: Re: Letter asking for help with Apple from the US VP
Date: 28 Sep 92 12:27:11
Organization: Thinking Machines Corporation, Cambridge Mass., USA
Distribution: usa
	<1992Sep24.140807.20755@rwwa.COM> <Bv7JI5.6s1@lerami.lerctr.org>
	<1992Sep27.094818.2416@fcom.cc.utah.edu>
NNTP-Posting-Host: underprize.think.com
In-reply-to: terry@cs.weber.edu's message of Sun, 27 Sep 92 09:48:18 GMT

In article <1992Sep27.094818.2416@fcom.cc.utah.edu> terry@cs.weber.edu (A Wizard of Earth C) writes:

   So while it is not necessarily cheap in all cases (multiple conflicts and
   prior art claims), it is relatively easy.  It does not require a flight to
   D.C. (unless this happens to be more cost effective) nor does it require a
   lawyer (the majority of the cost in most filings).

The examples you presented were clear, concrete examples.  If I want to
write a program to recalculate a spreadsheet (which I have no intention
of patenting, just of using for myself or selling) is it reasonable that
I have to do a full patent search on essentially every piece of the code
because I might happen to use some technique (natural order
recalculation, say) that someone else patented?  This means I have to
search every patent and compare it against every module in my code.

Recall that there is no fair use permitted for patents -- if I wrote a
spreadsheet for my own use, I could still be liable for a patent
violation.
--
ames >>>>>>>>>  |	Robert Krawitz <rlk@think.com>	245 First St.
bloom-beacon >  |think!rlk				Cambridge, MA  02142
harvard >>>>>>  .	Thinking Machines Corp.		(617)234-2116

Member of the League for Programming Freedom -- write league@prep.ai.mit.edu
From: David.Heiney@f20.n112.z1.fidonet.org (David Heiney)
Newsgroups: comp.org.eff.talk
Subject: This echo?
Date: 24 Sep 92 19:01:00 GMT
Article-I.D.: puddle.3334.2AC4C488
Organization: FidoNet node 1:112/20 - Medical Information, Jacksonville Fl


  What is this ECHO?  It seems to be findonet... but also looks like internet.  It is called "Internet-Link" on this board.

/ David Heiney  4804 Oakside Dr ------ medinfo.jax.fl.us  R/O Compat.  \
\ ->MEDINFO --- Jacksonville FL 32244  1:112/20 --------- Netmail Cpt. /



--  
uucp: uunet!m2xenix!puddle!112!20!David.Heiney
Internet: David.Heiney@f20.n112.z1.fidonet.org
Xref: sparky comp.org.eff.talk:6143 alt.bbs.internet:3848
From: greenie@drycas.club.cc.cmu.edu
Newsgroups: comp.org.eff.talk,alt.bbs.internet
Subject: Son of NREN bill online someplace?
Date: 1 Oct 92 21:07:41 -0500
Organization: Carnegie Mellon Computer Club

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...

Thanks...

Andy
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: Sat, 3 Oct 1992 09:40:14 GMT

From mcgregor Sat Oct  3 02:28:36 PDT 1992
Article: 1114 of misc.int-property
Newsgroups: comp.org.eff.talk,misc.int-property,alt.suit.att-bsdi,comp.unix.bsd
From: tinsel@uiuc.edu (Thomas Aaron Insel)
Newsgroups: comp.org.eff.talk
Subject: Re: Child Pornography was Re: Sysops' Top 20 Legal Questions
Date: 29 Sep 92 17:51:33 GMT
Article-I.D.: news.BvCpLy.9oK
Reply-To: tinsel@uiuc.edu
Organization: Masticating Illini
Originator: tai50080@uxa.cso.uiuc.edu

mnemonic@eff.org (Mike Godwin) writes:

> In article <Bv9zH4.8qJ@ibmpcug.co.uk> gtoal@ibmpcug.co.uk (Graham Toal) writes:
> >but if 3) the picture has been completely generated from a 3-d modelling
> >program to a high quality of photo-realism, there is no child or
> >parents to initiate a suit, and no child involved in pornographic
> >acts, so who would be legally at risk for what?

> Under federal law, as I have previously stated, this would not be illegal.
> As I have said before in this thread, federal law includes the sexual use
> of an actual child as an element of the offense.

But, what is illegal under federal law, and what federal courts convict
people for doing don't always overlap.  Although the letter of the law
doesn't say it's illegal, I am fairly confident the creator would be 
convicted if a case like this went to court, for one of many reasons:

  It looks so lifelike, it must be a real person.

  I don't care if it's fake, it's still immoral.

  They meant pictures of children, not necessarily photos of real kids.

BTW, does anyone know if there have been attempted/sucessful prosecutions
for child pornography involving paintings?
-- 
Thomas Insel (tinsel@uiuc.edu)
  "Extensive interviews show that not one alcoholic has ever actually seen a 
   pink elephant." -- Yale University, Center of Alcohol Studies
Newsgroups: comp.org.eff.talk
From: amirza@bronze.ucs.indiana.edu (Anmar Caves)
Subject: Unsolicited commercial email
Organization: Indiana University
Date: Fri, 2 Oct 1992 18:48:33 GMT


I'm not sure if this is the group to post to but...

I got an advertisement from abacus@gwinnett.com via email advertising
their services.  I called their 1-800 number and got passed around
when I expressed my concerns over junk mail via the internet.
Specifically I'd like to know what can be done about this.
They haven't gotten back to me.
-- 
Anmar Mirza   # Mayor of Dogspit, IN  #My Opinions! NotIU's! #Purveyor of
EMT-D         # Located somewhere in  # Legalize Explosives! #nontraditional
N9ISY (tech)  # the Outback of the    #I've got my own fusion#family values
Networks Tech.# Mirza Ranch.C'mon over#plant. Just ask me.   #Space For Rent
Newsgroups: comp.org.eff.talk,comp.unix.bsd,comp.os.mach,misc.int-property,alt.suit.att-bsdi,comp.sys.mac.advocacy
From: witr@rwwa.COM (Robert Withrow)
Subject: Re: Letter asking for help with Apple from the US VP
Reply-To: witr@rwwa.com
Organization: R.W. Withrow Associates
Distribution: usa
Date: Wed, 30 Sep 1992 13:10:09 GMT

In article <1992Sep29.164849.2966@cs.yale.edu>,
  reinitz-john@CS.YALE.EDU (John Reinitz) writes:

Him> Since it's so simple, perhaps you'd volunteer to do the patent search
Him> for us? If you won't volunteer, why not?

Me> I'd be glad to volunteer, in consideration for the appropriate fee (i.e.,
Me> my normal consulting rate, plus expenses).  Time is money... ;-)

You> Thank you, Mr. Withrow, *your* interests in this matter are
You> becoming clearer.

You mean to say that because I know how to research patents I am required
to do so for every Joe who comes along, gratis?  And my unwillingness
to do so is a sign of some sort of character flaw?

Why don't you tell us some things you know how to do, so we can schedule
you to come by and do them for us, for free, OK?  Do you know how to use
a broom?

-- 
 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:6086 misc.int-property:1085 alt.suit.att-bsdi:405
From: rlk@underprize.think.com (Robert Krawitz)
Newsgroups: comp.org.eff.talk,misc.int-property,alt.suit.att-bsdi
Subject: Re: Patents:  What they are.  What they aren't.  Other factors.
Date: 30 Sep 92 21:55:28
Organization: Thinking Machines Corporation, Cambridge Mass., USA
Distribution: usa
	<RLK.92Sep29102921@underprize.think.com>
	<1992Sep29.183828.8844@pony.Ingres.COM>
	<1992Sep30.233544.2637@fcom.cc.utah.edu>
NNTP-Posting-Host: underprize.think.com
In-reply-to: terry@cs.weber.edu's message of Wed, 30 Sep 92 23:35:44 GMT

In article <1992Sep30.233544.2637@fcom.cc.utah.edu> terry@cs.weber.edu (A Wizard of Earth C) writes:

   In article <1992Sep29.183828.8844@pony.Ingres.COM> jpk@Ingres.COM (Jon Krueger) writes:
   >Robert Krawitz wonders:
   >> how can I invent something and put it in the public domain
   >> without claiming rights to it
   >
   >Publish it before someone else patents it.
   >Use a publication method that has a date stamp.
   >Now you don't own it and never did.

   After a year, you mean.  You have up to a year after initial publication
   to patent patentable materials in the article/essay/book/magazine/etc..

My concern (and this does not apply in the US, which is based on "first
to invent" rather than "first to file") is that someone else will read
my publication and attempt to patent it (under first to file rules, such
as in the EC).  Or do first-to-file countries make something
unpatentable as soon as it's published?
--
ames >>>>>>>>>  |	Robert Krawitz <rlk@think.com>	245 First St.
bloom-beacon >  |think!rlk				Cambridge, MA  02142
harvard >>>>>>  .	Thinking Machines Corp.		(617)234-2116

Member of the League for Programming Freedom -- write league@prep.ai.mit.edu
Newsgroups: comp.org.eff.talk
From: jkp@cs.HUT.FI (Jyrki Kuoppala)
Subject: Re: FBI digital telephony bill?  (Tapping BBSes)
Keywords: significant words from a document used as an index to content
Reply-To: jkp@cs.HUT.FI (Jyrki Kuoppala)
Organization: Helsinki University of Technology, Finland
Date: Thu, 1 Oct 1992 07:58:12 GMT

In article <1992Sep30.134034.23253@orbital.demon.co.uk>, steveh@orbital (Stephen Hebditch) writes:
>In what sort of circumstances would an ordinary individual really need
>such technology? I can see how people can have an interest in exploring
>such technology for its own sake, but surely for the vast majority of
>people it is completely irrelevant?

Ask any politically active people from the former Soviet Union, as one
example.  Or any politically active person in USA if the FBI telephony
proposal becomes passed to law.

//Jyrki
Xref: sparky comp.org.eff.talk:6274 misc.int-property:1137 alt.suit.att-bsdi:454 comp.unix.bsd:6903
From: friedman@gnu.ai.mit.edu (Noah Friedman)
Newsgroups: comp.org.eff.talk,misc.int-property
Subject: Re: Patents:  What they are.  What they aren't.  Other factors.
Date: 30 Sep 92 13:54:06 GMT
	<1992Sep28.234246.10011@pony.Ingres.COM>
	<RLK.92Sep29102921@underprize.think.com>
	<1992Sep29.183828.8844@pony.Ingres.COM>
	<RLK.92Sep29155459@underprize.think.com>
Followup-To: comp.org.eff.talk
Organization: Free Software Foundation, 675 Mass Ave. Cambridge, MA 02139
In-reply-to: rlk@underprize.think.com's message of 29 Sep 92 19:54:59 GMT

In article <RLK.92Sep29155459@underprize.think.com> rlk@underprize.think.com (Robert Krawitz) writes:
>   > how can I invent something and put it in the public domain without
>   > claiming rights to it
>
>   Publish it before someone else patents it.  Use a publication method
>   that has a date stamp.  Now you don't own it and never did.
>
>Is this true in countries with a first-to-file rather than a
>first-to-invent system?

   Yes.  The issue of first-to-invent vs. first-to-file only affects patent
applications for (roughly) simultaneous independent inventions.
First-to-file means that if two people independently discovered or invented
something at roughly the same time and they both file for a patent, then
the decision of who to grant the patent depends on which handed in the
application first, not who actually has evidence of having invented the
thing first. 

   If there is publicly documented prior art (and assuming the patent
office is clueful enough to actually find it), the patent won't be granted
in either case. 

   Of course, I'm not a lawyer (I don't even play one on TV).  Despite my
personal feeling that they should all be shot, until they are we have to
rely on them for authoritative answers about the law---so check with one to
make sure.
From: mnemonic@eff.org (Mike Godwin)
Newsgroups: comp.org.eff.talk
Subject: Re: Flame-filters, anyone?
Date: 5 Oct 92 20:24:34 GMT
Organization: Electronic Frontier Foundation
Originator: mnemonic@eff.org

In article <1992Oct5.152309.963@nntp.hut.fi> jkp@cs.HUT.FI (Jyrki Kuoppala) writes:
>In article <1992Oct5.034828.13300@eff.org>, mnemonic@eff (Mike Godwin) writes:
>>How were you flamed, Jyrki? Over here, mere disagreement with one's
>>opinion is not normally classified as a flame.
>
>I was talking more about your comments to Brad Hicks.

Is there any particular reason you never comment about Brad Hicks's
references to me? 


--Mike



-- 
Mike Godwin,    |"Liberty resides in the rights of that person
mnemonic@eff.org| whose views you find most odious."
(617) 864-0665  | 
EFF, Cambridge  |                           --John Stuart Mill
From: peter@global.hacktic.nl (Peter Busser)
Newsgroups: comp.org.eff.talk
Subject: Re: 386 Box + Unix
Date: Sun, 27 Sep 92 14:33:04 GMT
Organization: Global Village 1

predat0r@digund.uucp (Predat0R)  writes:

>I would like more information on this 386 box w/unix! If you say they
>are so easy to come by, prove it. If they cost so little how come you
>never see them? Etc...

They cost little: Linux and 386BSD cost $0.00. You can FTP Linux from
tsx-11.mit.edu, nic.funet.fi, ftp.uu.net, and many other FTP sites. Just look
for the MCC Interrim release or SLS distribution. Check out comp.unix.bsd for
more info about 386BSD and comp.os.linux for more information about Linux.
You'll see in those newsgroups that there are many people who use those
systems.

Why you never saw a 386 box with UNIX? I don't know, wrong friends maybe? ;-)

Greetings,
Peter Busser
Newsgroups: comp.org.eff.talk
From: patents@basser.cs.su.oz.au (patents newsgroup moderator)
Subject: patent infringement
Reply-To: patents@cs.su.oz.au (patents newsgroup moderator)
Organization: Basser Dept of Computer Science, University of Sydney, Australia
Date: Tue, 6 Oct 1992 22:21:55 GMT

Terry Carroll sent the following to comp.patents so I have posted the
FAQ entry on this matter.$[..

 
In article <RLK.92Sep28183414@underprize.think.com>, rlk@underprize.think.com 
(Robert Krawitz) writes:
> 
> In article <1992Sep28.214228.27433@fcom.cc.utah.edu> terry@cs.weber.edu (A 
> Wizard of Earth C) writes:
> 
>    But you are incorrect that I can not build something infringing on a
>    patent
>    for personal use only.  This is perfectly legal.  I can *not*, however,
>    sell it at any future date, nor give it away, except as an inheritance.
> 
>    Given your example of writing a spreadsheet for your own use, yes, that 
>    is
>    perfectly legal.  Giving me a copy is not, giving me your only copy is
>    not,
>    but willing it to me is.
> 
> I'd be happy to be proven wrong, but it was my understanding that there
> are *no* exceptions, not even personal use only.



(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.

From: William Humphries <humphrie@ssc.wisc.edu>
A follow up to a question in the FAQ about "is construction of infringing
devices for user's own amusement."

>From case law:
	"As early as 1813, Justice Story had carved out an execption to
	the prohibition against 'use,' called the experimental use exemption.
	If the patented article was made or used for philisophical purposes (
	today we would substitue purely scientific), amusement or curiosity
	purposes, it was not actionable."

	Whittemore v. Cutter, 29 F. Cas. 1120 (CCD Mass 1813), op cite in
	Krulwicvh, "Statutory Reversal of Roche v. Bolar", Food Drug
	Cosmetic Law Journal, 40, 519-525 (1985).

When Roche Products sued Bolar (a generic drug manufacturer) for infringing
their patent on Dalmane, Bolar claimed that their use of the active ingre-
dient was strictly intended for obtaining FDA approval of the generic
form of Dalmane once Roche's patent expired. Bolar's defense was while
using the active ingredient for obtaining FDA approval to market Dalmane
was not exactly the exception Justice Story described, the Story exception
did leave space for Judicial interpretation.

The appelate court did not agree, but that's moot since the Waxman-Hatch
Amendments to the Food and Drug Act were enacted in 1984.



pjt
====================================================================
Peter Treloar - comp.patents Moderator
Posts to patents@cs.su.oz.au
Send problems to patents-request@cs.su.oz.au
Newsgroups: comp.org.eff.talk
From: mnemonic@eff.org (Mike Godwin)
Subject: Re: EFFector Online 3.06: Bruce Sterling
Originator: mnemonic@eff.org
Organization: Electronic Frontier Foundation
Date: Tue, 6 Oct 1992 17:04:47 GMT

In article <1992Oct6.051336.12524@news.acns.nwu.edu> learn@speedy.acns.nwu.edu (William J. Vajk) writes:

>I think anyone who has followed this newsgroup for a while sees the
>repetitive argumentative pattern in Mr. Godwin's articles. Whenever
>he disagrees with something, he eventually falls back on his infamous 
>"he made it up" routine. 
>
>Perhaps Mr. Godwin makes up things to comfort himself in his own views. 

It should be noted that my source on the motivations of Pengo, Markus
Hess, and the other Hannover Hackers is, for the most part, Hafner and
Markoff's book CYBERPUNK, whose middle chapter deals with the Cuckoo's Egg
case from the other side. I have also spoken a number of times with
Hafner, who personally interviewed Pengo in German (she's now working on a
book about the reunification of Germany). I've also spoken with federal
agents who were involved in the case.

If there is a source of information that supports Brad Hicks's
interpretation of events, I'd be happy to hear of it.


--Mike




-- 
Mike Godwin,    |"Liberty resides in the rights of that person
mnemonic@eff.org| whose views you find most odious."
(617) 864-0665  | 
EFF, Cambridge  |                           --John Stuart Mill
Xref: sparky comp.org.eff.talk:6047 misc.int-property:1065 comp.unix.bsd:6566 alt.suit.att-bsdi:387
From: wcs@anchor.ho.att.com (Bill Stewart +1-908-949-0705)
Newsgroups: comp.org.eff.talk,misc.int-property,comp.unix.bsd,alt.suit.att-bsdi
Subject: Re: Patents:  What they are.  What they aren't.  Other factors.
Date: 30 Sep 92 04:33:31 GMT
	<1992Sep26.161204.24573@rwwa.COM>
	<16862.Sep2705.07.5792@virtualnews.nyu.edu>
	<1992Sep28.202521.28752@rwwa.COM>
	<1992Sep28.231823.8385@pony.Ingres.COM>
Distribution: usa
Organization: Bush and Noriega - a CRACK Team!

In article <1992Sep28.231823.8385@pony.Ingres.COM> jpk@Ingres.COM (Jon Krueger) writes:
	   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.
   U.S. Constitution, Article I, section 8

The interesting aspect of this is that this *isn't* all that patent law does,
so some aspects of patent law violate the Constitution.
With some algorithms, such as RSA, the patent-holders discovered it,
published it, and we're using *their* discovery.
With others, such as XOR cursors and LZW compression,
the patenters discovered it, and other people also discovered it,
and the patent-holders not only acquire exclusive rights to 
their *own* discoveries, but also to the similar discoveries of the
*other* independent inventors - who should have had the right to use them.

I'm not particularly thrilled with the idea of protecting algorithm
discoveries, but in the case of RSA, the patent process has encouraged
them to make their discoveries available to the public.
Would they have done so even without patent protection?  Probably,
but who knows.
--
				Pray for peace;      Bill
#Bill Stewart 908-949-0705 wcs@anchor.ho.att.com AT&T Bell Labs 4M312 Holmdel NJ
# Trickle-Down Economics: Giving money to government bureaucrats 
#	and hoping some will trickle down to the people who need help.
Xref: sparky comp.org.eff.talk:6216 misc.int-property:1125 alt.suit.att-bsdi:443
From: jpk@Ingres.COM (Jon Krueger)
Subject: Re: Patents:  What they are.  What they aren't.  Other factors.
Reply-To: jpk@Ingres.COM (Jon Krueger)
Organization: Ingres Division, ASK Computer Systems.
Distribution: usa
Date: 28 Sep 92 23:42:46 GMT

Robert Krawitz asks:

> Why is intellectual "property" worthy of such
> greater protection than common property?

How many books would you have read had there been no
profit motive for a publisher?

How many drugs would you have benefited from had the
pharmaceutical manufacturer been unable to amortize
costs of R&D, lab tests, clinical trials, and scale-up?

Would the network we are now using exist had there been
no profit in engineering certain critical parts of it?

(On the other hand, if someone had relatively long
term exclusive use protection for the use of surprise
endings in short stories, or for any drug test involving
a non-human species, or for any communication system
involving integer arithmatic, we might also ask how
many stories, drugs, or computer networks we would have.)

> Why should the patent holder be permitted to deny anyone
> else the right to make a copy?

She isn't; she's just permitted to deny others the right
sell it.

> How does this infringe upon the right of the patent holder
> to use her widget?

It doesn't.  If she fails to patent it and someone else
patents it, however, she may find she still has the right
to use her widget but has lost the right to sell it.

-- Jon

Jon Krueger  jpk@ingres.com  
Newsgroups: comp.org.eff.talk,comp.admin.policy,alt.censorship,alt.comp.acad-freedom.talk,alt.society.civil-liberty,alt.politics.usa.constitution