HDTenEightyP/NetNews huggingface dataset:
From: jkp@cs.HUT.FI (Jyrki Kuoppala)
Subject: Re: Supreme Court and U.S. Constitution (was Re: Banned Computer Material 1992)
Followup-To: alt.politics.usa.constitution
Reply-To: jkp@cs.HUT.FI (Jyrki Kuoppala)
Organization: Helsinki University of Technology, Finland
Date: Sat, 10 Oct 1992 00:09:58 GMT

In article <1992Oct7.153350.19159@newstand.syr.edu>, greeny@top (J. S. Greenfield) writes:
>To the vast majority of the english-speaking world, however, you will
>be completely misunderstood (unless you explicitly qualify your use of
>"Constitution" with your own definition).
>
>Likewise, to the vast majority of the world, an unqualified remark about the
>meaning of the US Constitution will suggest that the interpretation of the SC
>is being discussed.

I don't think so.  I think that to a vast majority of people,
English-speaking or not, a remark about what the U.S. Constitution
says would be taken as a remark on what the U.S. Constitution says,
not what any of the U.S. supreme Courts have said it is.

It might well be that for the vast majority of people with legal
education what you say is correct, though.

Followups directed to alt.politics.usa.constitution.

//Jyrki
From: jaiken@zeus.calpoly.edu (Abdual McClamwacker)
Newsgroups: comp.org.eff.talk
Subject: Re: Commercial MUD - Continued
Date: 13 Oct 92 17:46:00 GMT
Distribution: usa
Organization: California Polytechnic State University, San Luis Obispo

I am afraid I don't understand how you could make money off of a MUD when
there are thousands of MUDs that are free,  What about problems between
players?  They pay for it so they don't want to just quit, seems with would
be more hassel than it is worth.  What could you do to this MUD to make it
so cool people woulc choose to pay to play yours rather than just go for a
cool free one?
Newsgroups: comp.org.eff.talk,comp.admin.policy,alt.censorship,alt.comp.acad-freedom.talk,alt.society.civil-liberty,alt.politics.usa.constitution
From: mnemonic@eff.org (Mike Godwin)
Subject: Re: Supreme Court and U.S. Constitution (was Re: Banned Computer Material 1992)
Originator: mnemonic@eff.org
Organization: Electronic Frontier Foundation
Date: Fri, 9 Oct 1992 11:52:12 GMT

In article <Bvtr2s.EFx@chinet.chi.il.us> dhartung@chinet.chi.il.us (Dan Hartung) writes:

>It is probably important to mention that many conservatives believe
>that the Constituion gives Congress the right to remove various
>kinds of cases from the court's jurisdiction, but that the public
>in general -- and more to the point, Congress -- feel that this is
>a Bad Idea and will lead to even worse kinds of jurisdictional
>fights than we have now.

It is just as important to note that many nonconservatives (take me, for
instance) believe that the Constitution gives Congress the right to limit
the Supreme Court's appellate jurisdiction. It's right there in the
language of Article III.


--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:6379 misc.int-property:1162 alt.suit.att-bsdi:473 comp.unix.bsd:7219
From: ian@airs.com (Ian Lance Taylor)
Newsgroups: comp.org.eff.talk
Subject: Re: Re- EFFector Online 3.06- B
Date: 10 Oct 92 05:46:16 GMT

learn@speedy.acns.nwu.edu (William J. Vajk) writes:

>In article <5503@airs.com> ian@airs.com (Ian Lance Taylor) writes:

>>learn@speedy.acns.nwu.edu (William J. Vajk) writes:

>>>I cannot recall anyone who has worked at anything seriously unless
>>>they were paid for it. Idealistic volunteers I've known have always
>>>been like a flash in a pan which burns out very quickly and then
>>>they were gone. If an idealist is paid, then their idealsim only
>>>aids the potential effectiveness through zealous attack.

>>For an obvious example, the software which most of us use to
>>communicate on comp.org.eff.talk was written by people who were not
>>paid for it.

>How many volunteers? Are they a small gorup each of which has been
>at it from the beginning till now? And too, how much of the "publish
>or perish" syndrome applies to any or all of them? In short, how much
>of their"volunteer" work is somehow related to their jobs? And finally,
>How many of those people who fall into the category of volunteer for
>the long haul (years....not weeks or months) do you personally know?

It's hard for me to even approach this question seriously.  I assume
that you know nothing about Richard Stallman and the Free Software
Foundation, or about the history of the Usenet source code or any of
the hundreds, if not thousands, of the free software packages
available on the net.

I'll cite Henry Spencer as a single obvious example.  He's been
working on C news, with Geoff Collyer, since 1985.  He's gotten one,
maybe two (depending on how you count them) Usenix papers out of it.
I don't think that's enough for him to keep his job at the University
of Toronto (and, indeed, he has written a number of other, unrelated,
papers over that time).  Other than the papers, C news has nothing to
do with his job.

I myself have been working on Taylor UUCP for over a year.  I've
gotten one short term consulting job out of it, which I did not expect
when I started and has not been repeated.  Other than that I have
received absolutely nothing except appreciation.  Yet I have no plans
to stop working on it.

>See, idealism isn't devoid of payment....only commonly accepted ideas
>of what payment is.

Taken widely, that amounts to a statement that nobody does things for
no reason.  If that's all you meant by your original comment, then I
misunderstood you, and my response was inappropriate.  Obviously
people who get nothing out of what they are doing ``burn out very
quickly.''
-- 
Ian Lance Taylor                ian@airs.com                 uunet!airs!ian
First person to identify this quote wins a free e-mail message:
``Surprise is the soul of whist.''
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: Thu, 15 Oct 1992 14:43:59 GMT

In article <id.S_2U.Z2G@ferranti.com>, 
  peter@ferranti.com (peter da silva) writes:

| > >But you haven't given a single real example. The opposing side has given
| > >many.
| 
| > I guess it comes down to what you mean by "real". I think that Robert
| > Withrow is correct, that no patent, even non software patents, can
| > meet the standard of proof being asked for.
| 
| And you won't even try. You think the battle is over, so why should you?

Before giving examples of software patents that are ``beneficial to 
society'' we must first come to an agreement on the definition of the
quoted term.

I believe it is impossible for the opposing factions to come to such an
agreement.  The reason I believe this is because the anti-patent faction
has settled on a definition of ``beneficial to society'' that excludes
*all* patents from ever being ``beneficial to society''.  Since, using this
definition, *all* patents fail to be beneficial, all *software* patents
would also fail to be beneficial.

To test this thesis I challenged one of the apparent spokesmen of the
anti-patent faction to list five examples of patents of any type which
he felt were ``beneficial to society'' and why they were beneficial.  As
yet neither he nor anyone else in the anti-patent faction has done so.
I am not holding my breath.  

Until we have such an operative definition, I feel safe in saying that
any example I would offer up would be greeted by a loud braying from the
anti-patent faction claiming it was *obviously* not of a benefit to
society.

PS: I've had it with this thread.  I must have been insane thinking that
it was an intellectual topic; it's not.  It is nothing but politics, and
as I should have known: politics and thought have as much in common as
liver and icecream.

-- 
 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
Newsgroups: comp.org.eff.talk
From: mnemonic@eff.org (Mike Godwin)
Subject: Re: Things
Originator: mnemonic@eff.org
Organization: Electronic Frontier Foundation
Distribution: inet
Date: Thu, 15 Oct 1992 05:18:44 GMT

In article <1bis65INN95f@nigel.msen.com> emv@msen.com (Edward Vielmetti) writes:

>On the other hand, this very same conversation about the purported morality
>or amorality of East German hackers either has was going strong
>this June, the Amorality / Political Hacking thread.  Plenty of stuff from
>Mike Godwin there.

Any stuff in which I said Pengo is "amoral"? I don't think so.

>Plenty of, er, mostly the same stuff that was being
>talked about before, nothing particularly new, is someone more or less
>moral for hacking, being paid for hacking, actively marketing your hacking
>skills, hacking for one "side" or the other, what drugs or drugs money may
>or may not have to do with morality.  Is Pengo like Mohandas Gandhi?

I believe that what I said was simply that Pengo's actions were not
altruistic, as that word is commonly used. I also quarreled with the 
argument that Cliff Stoll is insane or a tool of the American military
industrial complex, and with the argument that his actions are the moral
equivalent of Pengo's.

Only a very poor reader would suppose that what I had posted cast Pengo as
an "amoral psychopath."


--Mike




-- 
Mike Godwin,    |"I can solve this Orient Express thing without
mnemonic@eff.org| breaking a sweat. It's that simple."
(617) 864-0665  | 
EFF, Cambridge  |                           --Hercule Perot
Newsgroups: comp.org.eff.talk,comp.admin.policy,alt.censorship,alt.comp.acad-freedom.talk,alt.society.civil-liberty
From: johnl@forthd.uucp (John Lebert)
Newsgroups: comp.org.eff.talk
Subject: Re: Unsolicited commercial email
Summary: Snake oil sales?
Date: 7 Oct 92 01:48:09 GMT
Reply-To: johnl@espace
Distribution: na
Organization: Fourth Dimension, Portland OR

In article <1992Oct03.041023.8204@anomaly.sbs.risc.net>, kd1hz@anomaly.sbs.risc.net (Michael P. Deignan) writes:
> amirza@bronze.ucs.indiana.edu (Anmar Caves) writes:
> 
>>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.
> 
> Yes, I received the same mailing. Probably every person who recently
> posted to USENET will receive this message - I believe they simply took
> From: headers from USENET postings, parsed the addresses, and e-mailed
> a form letter.
> 
> Clearly, this action is in violation of the NSFnet's Acceptable Use 
> Policy (for those sites who receive their mail/news via NSF circuits).
> 
> For those that don't, it is still in very poor taste.
> 
>>Specifically I'd like to know what can be done about this.
> 
> Not much. Complain to their feed about the junk mail - that's about it.
> 

  I suppose it would be inappropriate if all of us that received the email
  sent it right back to them (with about 900 extra lines of text). They might
  get too busy with disk space management to send anymore....

-- 
 John Lebert                              Internet: johnl@espace  
 Fourth Dimension                     Modem (9600): (503)236-5068 
 Portland, OR                                Voice: (503)234-4364 
              *May I be excused?  My brain is full.*

                Press CTRL-ALT-DEL to continue....
Newsgroups: comp.org.eff.talk
From: mc/G=Brad/S=Hicks/OU=0205925@mhs.attmail.com
Subject: Re- EFFector Online 3.06- B
Originator: daemon@eff.org
Organization: EFF mail-news gateway
Date: Thu, 8 Oct 1992 12:41:32 GMT

Date: 10/7/92   5:59 PM
Subj: Re: EFFector Online 3.06: Bruce Sterling
 
 > Brad Hicks (or anyone on this forum) can get my opinions
 > just by sending me e-mail.
 
Sheesh yourself.  I didn't even MENTION you in this discussion, Cliff, we
beat that subject to death months ago.  I was talking about what Bruce
Sterling said in the EFFector Online mentioned above.
 
As for whether or not you're a dog, running or otherwise (grin), that's
not for me to say ... but I must say that when somebody who describes
himself as any kind of a liberal finds himself cooperating with the FBI,
the SS, and the NSA, I hope that he takes a close look at his new friends
and at the people he's helping his new friends go after before he comes
down firmly on one side or the other.  (I can imagine myself cooperating
with the FBI under some circumstances.  The SS is more of a stretch.  The
NSA is right out of the question.  My own moral values.)  I admit that
knowing the targets that they were (sent?) after, and knowing Hagbard's
religious affiliation, biases me.  Besides, it's all water under the
bridge, anyway.
 
 > I just got Bruce Sterling's book, The Hacker Crackdown.
 > I'll be reading it this weekend.
 
It's out?  Goody!  (I will read just about anything Bruce Sterling
writes.)  I need to make a trip to the bookstore tonight anyway.
 
 ----------------------------------------------------------------------
 J. Brad Hicks                 | Poor is the man whose pleasures depend
 mhs!mc!Brad_Hicks@attmail.com | on the permission of another.
 
Xref: sparky comp.org.eff.talk:6406 misc.int-property:1178 alt.suit.att-bsdi:488 comp.unix.bsd:7301
From: oppedahl@panix.com (Carl Oppedahl)
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: 12 Oct 92 18:56:42 GMT
Organization: PANIX Public Access Unix, NYC

In <1992Oct11.051428.9194@netcom.com> mcgregor@netcom.com (Scott Mcgregor) writes:

>In article <22808.Oct1104.20.0092@virtualnews.nyu.edu> brnstnd@nyu.edu (D. J. Bernstein) writes:
>>In article <1992Oct9.002901.14966@netcom.com> mcgregor@netcom.com (Scott Mcgregor) writes:

>>Okay, Scott, where is Paperback Software?

>Gone I am afraid.  But where are all the firms that couldn't get
>started that couldn't get funding?  Might there be more of the latter
>than the former?

May I point out that the Paperback Software case was a copyright case, not
a patent case?  Nothing that happened in PS has any bearing on whether or
not patents should be granted on systems containing a lot of software.

And PS was only a district-court case.  It was never appealed.  We will 
never know what would have happened if it had been appealed.


Carl Oppedahl AA2KW  (intellectual property lawyer)
30 Rockefeller Plaza
New York, NY  10112-0228
voice 212-408-2578     fax 212-765-2519
Newsgroups: comp.org.eff.talk,misc.int-property,alt.suit.att-bsdi,comp.unix.bsd
From: peter@ferranti.com (peter da silva)
Subject: Re: Patents:  What they are.  What they aren't.  Other factors.
Organization: Xenix Support, FICC
Date: Mon, 12 Oct 1992 17:25:27 GMT

In article <1992Oct11.043358.5543@netcom.com> mcgregor@netcom.com (Scott Mcgregor) writes:
> I too have many many arguments. It is my opinion that the harms that
> the LPF claims are not at all clearly harmful to society even if they
> have harmed individuals.

They haven't just harmed individuals. For example, the Pike patent prevents
people from building a window system that uses backing store in a certain
way -- which happens to be the obvious and most effective way. This harms
everyone who uses a computer system running a window system, since it forces
them to use about twice as much RAM or a much faster CPU.

> Moreover, even conceding individual harms
> from individual patents against individual people, it is my opinion
> that there is little evidence that overall we aren't benefitted by
> patents,  and the LPF advocates eliminating all software patents even
> if only a few are demonstrably harmful and the mass might be
> beneficial.

The LPF advocates eliminating all software patents because they have found
a number of demonstrably harmful ones and no evidence whatsoever that the
mass might be beneficial. In fact, the best evidence is that there is no
observable benefit to patents on purely software systems.

> > You are unable to exhibit a single beneficial software patent.

> I've attempted to give plausable examples.

But you haven't given a single real example. The opposing side has given many.
-- 
Peter da Silva                                         `-_-'
Ferranti Intl. Ctls. Corp.                              'U` 
Sugar Land, TX  77487-5012           "Heeft u vandaag al uw wolf geknuffeld?"
+1 713 274 5180                       "Tjener, denne ret er stadig levende."
Newsgroups: comp.org.eff.talk
From: pfarrell@gmuvax2.gmu.edu (Pat Farrell)
Subject: Re: FBI, Laws, PGP, etc.
Summary:  PGP is good
Keywords: PGP, civil liberties, privacy
Organization: George Mason University, Fairfax, Va.
Date: Fri, 16 Oct 1992 17:35:50 GMT

Yes, I've seen all the patent discussions. And without being
a lawyer, I can't keep the claims straight. But PKP gives the
government free use of RSA, which is mighty nice of them since
it was developed with taxpayer's money, and allows at least
personal educational use. I've even contacted PKP and offered
them money.. I believe in paying for software that I use.

I think PGP represents a huge step forward for civil liberties
and personal privacy.

I was at this week's National Computer Security Conference, and
heard our government's folks talk about how good PEM will be
RSN. PGP is available now, and in several ways is superiour
to PEM.

I don't expect EFF to officially endorse PGP until all of us
can legally use it. But I believe we can get  educated about
it (and its neat features and capabilities) now.

I expected that c.o.eff.talk would be full of PGP activity.

Pat

Pat Farrell,      Grad Student                       pfarrell@cs.gmu.edu
Department of Computer Science, George Mason University, Fairfax, VA
PGP Public key available via finger           #include standard.disclaimer

Xref: sparky comp.org.eff.talk:6440 misc.int-property:1193 alt.suit.att-bsdi:504 comp.unix.bsd:7430
From: craig@ec.uwa.oz.au (Craig Richmond - division)
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: 14 Oct 1992 09:17:14 GMT
Organization: The University of Westrn Australia
Distribution: inet
NNTP-Posting-Host: decel.ecel.uwa.edu.au

peter@ferranti.com (peter da silva) writes:

>The LPF advocates eliminating all software patents because they have found
>a number of demonstrably harmful ones and no evidence whatsoever that the
>mass might be beneficial. In fact, the best evidence is that there is no
>observable benefit to patents on purely software systems.

Personally, I believe that the problem is not the fact that patents on
software systems are unreasonable, but that the time limit on the patent is
too long.  Software is a product that has a remarkably short marketable
lifetime.  This may not be true in the future, but is true now.  An
operating system that is cutting edge now, will be obselete in roughly 5
years and the technology that is at the core of the operating system will
be obsolete in say 20 years.  Modern day unix systems in no way reflect the
unix's of old.  Having a 20+ year patent on a software system means that
the patent is basically forever because when it runs out, chances are that
nobody will want it in the large part.

There are of course exceptions.  LZRW springs to mind.  It is a simple
algorithm that provides fast compression of data.  It will probably always
be relatively useful (I seem to recall it is also patented by 2 independent
groups and both of these were after it was posted to the net)

The number of totally inane things that are patented boggles the mind.
Things as trivial as using the XOR instruction to flash the cursor on the
screen.  IBM owns that one.  There are also thousands of patents every year
along those lines.  The Megacompanies have obviously made a point (as is
typical with research companies) of patenting everything they come up with
on principles more than actual expected benefits.

My opinion is that there must be a justifyable research cost before a
patent is granted.  How long would it take the average bozo fresh out of
university computer programmer to decide that the best way of flashing a
cursor is to use an XOR instruction?  I should think that anyone who has
done any assembly language programming would come up with that in a good 10
minutes of coffe drinking.  Yet it is covered by a patent, so IBM could
demand money if you develop your product in the States.  In fact I suspect
that if you went through and did a 1% royalty for every patented idea in a
standard commercial product, you would find that the patent royalties went
over the 100% mark :-)

Craig
--
Craig Richmond.  Computer Officer -  Dept of Economics (morning) 380 3860
  University of Western Australia    Dept of Education (afternoon)
craig@ecel.uwa.edu.au Dvorak Keyboards RULE!  "Messes are only acceptable
if users make them.  Applications aren't allowed this freedom" I.M.VI 2-4
Newsgroups: comp.org.eff.talk,misc.int-property,alt.suit.att-bsdi,comp.unix.bsd
From: dichter@chdasic.sps.mot.com (Carl Dichter)
Subject: Re: Patents:  What they are.  What they aren't.  Other factors.
Organization: SPS
Date: Tue, 13 Oct 1992 20:06:34 GMT

In article <id.6S0U.TRE@ferranti.com>, peter@ferranti.com (peter da silva) writes:
|> In article <1992Oct11.043358.5543@netcom.com> mcgregor@netcom.com (Scott Mcgregor) writes:
|> > Moreover, even conceding individual harms
|> > from individual patents against individual people, it is my opinion
|> > that there is little evidence that overall we aren't benefitted by
|> > patents,  and the LPF advocates eliminating all software patents even
|> > if only a few are demonstrably harmful and the mass might be
|> > beneficial.
|> 
|> The LPF advocates eliminating all software patents because they have found
|> a number of demonstrably harmful ones and no evidence whatsoever that the
|> mass might be beneficial. In fact, the best evidence is that there is no
|> observable benefit to patents on purely software systems.
|> 
|> > > You are unable to exhibit a single beneficial software patent.
|> 
|> > I've attempted to give plausable examples.

Tell me about the "demonstrably harmful ones".
I've studied the LZW patent issues, and other examples given by LPF.

The ATT vs BSDI & CSRG suit is not about patents: it's about copyright
and trade secrets. To me, trade secret is the worst way to protect
intellectual property: don't blame "clean-rooms" on patents.

The Lotus vs Paperback Software, Microsoft, or Borland, disputes were over 
user-interface copyrights.

The XOR patent is a hardware patent, I have found no examples of it having been
used against software. 

If you have an example of software patent abuse, let's hear it.
Until then, let's not take out all of our frustration in 
imperfect justice on patents-- or even on lawyers (although it's fun).
Justice is imperfect because we are imperfect. 

Reasonable laws give us a non-violent recourse when we believe that someone
has stolen our invention.

My article in favor of software patents (UNIX Review, Nov '92 "Patently Wrong")
is available now. Feel free to flame me after you've read it.

----------------------
Carl R. Dichter               "iwannanugui"
Motorola ASIC Division
email: dichter@chdasic.sps.mot.com
/*
** Quick to judge, quick to anger.... slow to understand. 
** Ignorance and prejudice, and fear, walk hand in hand."
** --Neil Peart"
*/
Newsgroups: comp.org.eff.talk,comp.admin.policy,alt.censorship,alt.comp.acad-freedom.talk,alt.society.civil-liberty