HDTenEightyP/NetNews huggingface dataset:
From: learn@speedy.acns.nwu.edu (William J. Vajk)
Subject: Re: Re- EFFector Online 3.06- B
Organization: Dares No Organization Like Dis Organization
Date: Thu, 8 Oct 1992 16:49:39 GMT

In article <1992Oct6.165859.17125@eff.org> Mike Godwin writes:

>In article <199210052350.AA04369@eff.org> mc/G=Brad/S=Hicks/OU=0205925@mhs.attmail.com writes:
 
>>Why are the medium in which they got paid, or the things that they spent
>>that money on, relevant to the morality of their actions?

>Well, Brad, think about it for a minute. Think of all the idealistic
>people you have known. If they were idealistic, can it truly be said they
>were in it for the money? How many idealistic people do you know who
>limited their political activity until they could be assured of being
>paid in cocaine? 


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.

In any case, is an idealist more or less likely to spend money on
illicit drugs? Is there any relationship between the work that
they do to earn money and how they spend that money? Did Jimmy
Carter, that great moralist (insert a string of smilies here)
not 'lust in his heart' after all?

And what is your opinion of the Len Rose modifications to the
login source code? Assuming that he made the modifications claimed,
with no intention to receive money, is his action moral or not???

By your definition, Mike, was this action idealism or not?

I don't think the sun rises or sets over money or definitions of morality.

>No. The issue is whether you'd do it anyway. There isn't much doubt that
>if Pengo had been offered a hot computer system by the CIA, he'd happily
>have spied on the Soviet Union's computers. This renders irrelevant your
>discussions about the United States's morally questionable
>strategic-weapons policies, since Pengo gave those policies scarcely any
>weight.

Houdini got off on breaking in and breaking out. He did it for money
and to entertain (himself and others.) He did not represent a threat
to those who feel threatened by those doing similar things in the
more modern equivalent of locks and safes. I don't think anyone claimed
Houdini was immoral, nor Feynman who pursued some similar interests.

It is not the act which seems to be in question here so much as the
outcome and potentials for skewing time oriented results.

Bill Vajk
From: peter@ferranti.com (peter da silva)
Subject: Re: Patents:  What they are.  What they aren't.  Other factors.
Organization: Xenix Support, FICC
Distribution: usa
Date: Mon, 12 Oct 1992 16:51:36 GMT

In article <1992Oct11.033044.2158@netcom.com> mcgregor@netcom.com (Scott Mcgregor) writes:
> In article <id.DQYT.W64@ferranti.com> peter@ferranti.com (peter da silva) writes:
> On the contrary, the current GNU  system leaves one liable not only for
> patent infringement, but for copyright and trade secret infringement.

But you are only liable if you make a deliberate choice to use GNU software.
You can always opt out. With software patents you're liable for code that
nobody else has ever had anything to do with. All your clearinghouse is is
an attempt to reduce this burden, forcing *you* to give up your intellectual
property rights to some clearinghouse in exchange for protection.

Even if you *like* the idea of software patents, if this clearinghouse
mechanism works they're immediately valueless: all the benefit will accrue to
the lawyers in the clearinghouse as they play musical patents with other
organizations. And this is the *best* result you've been able to come up with
as a result of software patents.

Like I said, all you end up with is the same situation we have now, except
there's more money for lawyers to feed off.
-- 
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."
From: Zhahai.Stewart@f93.n104.z1.fidonet.org (Zhahai Stewart)
Newsgroups: comp.org.eff.talk
Subject: Re: Patents:  What they are.  What they aren't.  Other factors.
Date: 14 Oct 92 19:53:16 GMT
Article-I.D.: puddle.9052.2ADE14F4
Organization: FidoNet node 1:104/93 - Adelante, Boulder CO


 SM> ... AT&T keeps very
 SM> little of its patented technology exclusive. Virtually everything
 SM> in their portfolio is already licensable, typically for under 2%
 SM> standard royalties, which is a low rate. IBM too licenses most of its
 SM> patents at low rates.

Which pieces do they keep exclusive, and why?  Patents in the backwaters of who-cares-anyway, or ones that are in the mainstream of competition?  Or,seen from another angle, what portion of their "virtually everything" which is licenseable, is really of interest to anyone?  It's easy to make the percentage which is licenceable sound great, if it is largely filled with those patents which nobody wants to use.

What is "2% standard royalties"?  2% of what?  Does it matter how big a chunk of a product the patent covers?

For example, an archive/compress program which uses a patented compression algorithm as their key feature may find 2% (of something) quite reasonable. A networked BBS for which the same algorithm was only one of maybe 100 tiny algorithms used in various parts of the system might find it hard to pay 200% to licence each piece; even 2% for one piece might seem large.

Thanks for any clarity which would help in evaluating your arguments here.
   ~z~


--  
uucp: uunet!m2xenix!puddle!104!93!Zhahai.Stewart
Internet: Zhahai.Stewart@f93.n104.z1.fidonet.org
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
Distribution: usa
Date: Mon, 12 Oct 1992 17:14:25 GMT

In article <1992Oct11.032226.1534@netcom.com> mcgregor@netcom.com (Scott Mcgregor) writes:
> In article <id.3QYT.II3@ferranti.com> peter@ferranti.com (peter da silva) writes:
> >OK, what if I held the patent on "the application of long division to the
> >calculation of divisors and dividends"? You can syill use long division
> >for divination or artistic works, but as soon as you write down the result
> >of the calculation you're stuck. I don't see how there's any difference.

> I don't think you could ever get such a patent--because you haven't
> given a physical manifestation for divisors and dividends.

OK, what's the physical manifestation of bits and bytes? Any *particular*
example you can come up with is just as specialised as batches of bottles
or slices of pizza. If Unisys wants to patent a method for compressing
data stored as magnetic transitions on a disk platter, fine, but should
it cover data stored as flux *levels* (FM versus MFM), on a disk, or ferrite
donuts, let alone charge levels in a silicon matrix, or transmission line,
or frequencies in a transmission line (FSK modem)?

Now do you see the problem?
-- 
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."
Xref: sparky comp.org.eff.talk:6393 misc.int-property:1173 alt.suit.att-bsdi:484 comp.unix.bsd:7242
From: barmar@think.com (Barry Margolin)
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 1992 02:12:32 GMT
Organization: Thinking Machines Corporation, Cambridge MA, USA
Distribution: usa
NNTP-Posting-Host: gandalf.think.com

In article <1992Oct11.031616.854@netcom.com> mcgregor@netcom.com (Scott Mcgregor) writes:
>Today, if I use some of Peter's code, I might be sued by AT&T because
>they might claim that Peter's code was derived from their trade secret
>protected code (doesn't require copyright, or patent).
...
>On the other hand, under the clearinghouse model if both
>AT&T and I were members AT&T can't sue me.

By definition, trade secrets can't be patented, so presumably they wouldn't
be covered by the protection of the patent clearinghouse.
-- 
Barry Margolin
System Manager, Thinking Machines Corp.

barmar@think.com          {uunet,harvard}!think!barmar
Newsgroups: comp.org.eff.talk,misc.legal,tor.general
From: evan@telly.on.ca (Evan Leibovitch)
Subject: Re: Toronto Teenager Charged in 911 Case
Organization: Somewhere just far enough out of Toronto
Date: Thu, 8 Oct 1992 14:52:27 GMT

In article <1992Oct7.214501.25109@samba.oit.unc.edu>
	Nigel.Allen@bbs.oit.unc.edu (Nigel Allen) writes:

> Teenage Computer Hacker Nabbed by Police

What is left to be determined is why "computer hacker" is related to the
case.

>Last July, a young man called the 911 emergency number from a location in
>the west end of Metropolitan Toronto and reported a number of medical
>emergencies which caused units from the Metropolitan Toronto Police,
>ambulance services and local fire departments to respond. All of these
>calls were determined to be false.

In other words, he placed a bunch of false alarms by voice.

What did his computer have to do with it? What is to be gained by
calling him a "hacker", except to yet-again smear the image of teenagers 
who happen to be interested on computing.

> On one occasion, he totally monopolized the 911 system and rendered it
>inoperable thereby denying citizens access to the 911 lifeline throughout
>the Metropolitan Toronto area.

>Bell Canada security officers assisted police in their search for the
>source of the calls. Acting on a Criminal Code search warrant, police
>today entered a North York home, seized a quantity of computers and
>arrested a teen-age boy.

If these actions were assisted by modem, I can understand the "hacker"
label. But the use of a computer in the commission of these crimes does
not appear to be an issue.

If this is the case, why is he necessarily a hacker because he had a
home computer? And what, in the lingo of the police, describes a "hacker"?

[ Was he stupid enough to boast of his actions on a BBS? Even if so, the
computers were not used in making the prank calls. ]

>Note from NDA: More information may be available from the public affairs
>office of the Metropolitan Toronto Police at (416) 324-2222 or from
>Detective W. Johnston of the Major Crime Squad at (416) 324-6245.

I called "public affairs", to ask whether the computers were indeed a
factor in the prank calls. I got put on hold forever, after bouncing
around a number of people who didn't have a clue what I was talking
about. I called the Major Crime Squad and was told there was nobody
around who could answer my questions. So much for getting to the bottom
of this....

We have enough of a problem of not enough kids getting into high-tech careers.
This unjustified use of the term "hacker" as a negative, doesn't help.
-- 
 Evan Leibovitch, Sound Software Ltd., located in beautiful Brampton, Ontario
         evan@telly.on.ca / uunet!utzoo!telly!evan / (416) 452-0504
         "IBM's three letters are probably EBCDIC for CYA" - Nik H.
Newsgroups: comp.org.eff.talk,comp.admin.policy,alt.censorship,alt.comp.acad-freedom.talk,alt.society.civil-liberty,alt.politics.usa.constitution
From: peter@ferranti.com (peter da silva)
Subject: Re: Patents:  What they are.  What they aren't.  Other factors.
Organization: Xenix Support, FICC
Distribution: usa
Date: Wed, 14 Oct 1992 20:18:53 GMT

In article <1992Oct13.053105.20874@netcom.com> mcgregor@netcom.com (Scott Mcgregor) writes:
> In article <id.OR0U.JXD@ferranti.com> peter@ferranti.com (peter da silva) writes:
> >But you have an absolute defense, in that I have never had any access to
> >trade secret protected code. AT&T can't play that game too many times.

> You still will have to prove it.

All I have to show is I was never employed by any company that had access
to AT&T code. Which is in fact the case. Where else could I have seen it?
This is completely different from a *PATENT* case, where you don't need to
prove contamination.

> >> I don't understand this argument because he CAN distribute it just as
> >> freely as under GNU.

> >I don't *operate* under GNU. I don't have to. I can opt out, and I have opted
> >out, and I've said so any number of times. Why do you keep bringing it up?

> Okay, forget GNU.  Peter can distribute your sources however he wants.
> The can be a member of the clearinghouse or not. It has absolutely
> nothing to do with distributing sources.  It only has to do with
> whether you want to be free from risk from a lawsuit from members of
> the clearinghouse or not.

Right. Software patents create an unavoidable cost (either in terms of
risk or membership fees and reduced distribution rights) that would not
otherwise exist.

> >But those risks are *exactly* what this debate is about. 

> Yes, here is a system that offers to reduce risks relative to what we
> have today.

A better solution is to return to the status quo prior to software patents.

> It is voluntary. Peter wants to opt out. Fine. Since it is
> voluntary he can.

It's unavoidable, one way or the other. Voluntary implies there's a
credible alternative. This is voluntary like income tax is voluntary.

> >I'm not arguing that your clearinghouses are a bad idea
> >in and of themselves, but that they are only a partial replacement for the
> >status quo,  and that the main beneficiaries of software patents are lawyers,
> > not inventors.

> I don't see how you conclude the lawyers benefit, since there are
> fewer litigation suits, and fewer contracts to draft.

What, fewer suits because we have software patents?

> Peter hasn't shown how a
> clearinghouse would benefit lawyers in any way, he just claims it.

I have made no such claim. I claim that SOFTWARE PATENTS only benefit
lawyers, and the best possible solution you have come up with to the
problem benefits lawyers *more than* it does inventors, over the
rational status quo where software patents do not exist.
-- 
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,misc.int-property,alt.suit.att-bsdi,comp.unix.bsd
From: richard@pegasus.com (Richard Foulk)
Subject: Re: Patents:  What they are.  What they aren't.  Other factors.
Organization: Pegasus,  Honolulu
Date: Sat, 17 Oct 92 01:53:08 GMT

In article <1992Oct15.144359.7019@rwwa.COM> witr@rwwa.com writes:
> [...]
>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.
>

Without taking either side, let me ask:

Can we assume that you are not willing to entertain the possibility
that patents may ultimately not be beneficial to society?


-- 
Richard Foulk		richard@pegasus.com
Newsgroups: comp.org.eff.talk
From: brad@clarinet.com (Brad Templeton)
Subject: Re: Commercial MUD - Continued
Organization: ClariNet Communications Corp.
Distribution: usa
Date: Tue, 13 Oct 1992 20:21:12 GMT

I think a commercial MUD could still work because the money pays for
a staff.

There is IRC and there are many chat boards but commercial chat services
make a ton of money.  In part that's because not everybody can get access
to free chat, but these chats have staffs that are always organizing
events and helping users etc.  Many people buy $100/month unlimited
memberships in these things, or pay $6/hour or more.

In a MUD, the need for paid staff can be even greater.   A paid MUD is also
easier to make into a verified-user MUD, which some prefer over anonymous
MUDs.  There's also the "riff-raff" factor, where the very fact that the
users are paying is a virtue, because it indicates a certain level of
seriousness.   (I always thought it was a great scam that dating services
make use of this, many charging a lot because the clients are attracted
to only being matched up with people who paid a lot.)
-- 
Brad Templeton, ClariNet Communications Corp. -- Sunnyvale, CA 408/296-0366
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: Sun, 11 Oct 1992 03:22:26 GMT

In article <id.3QYT.II3@ferranti.com> peter@ferranti.com (peter da silva) writes:


>OK, what if I held the patent on "the application of long division to the
>calculation of divisors and dividends"? You can syill use long division
>for divination or artistic works, but as soon as you write down the result
>of the calculation you're stuck. I don't see how there's any difference.

I don't think you could ever get such a patent--because you haven't
given a physical manifestation for divisors and dividends.  If you
applied this to dividing up large batches of bottles into cartons,
maybe you could get a patent in that specialized area if that was
novel and unobvious.  But a patent covering that application wouldn't
prevent someone else from using long division to determine how to
slice pizza at a pizza parlor to meet varying numbers of customers
sharing it.  And that is the imaginary scenario the LPF paper asked us
to consider--that somehow an algorithm used in one specialized are
would be granted patent status and affect people in other application
areas who would never have seen the patent in a search because the
application areas are unrelated.  If they are truly that unrelated the
patent won't be upheld to be that broad without explicitly claiming
both areas--which would make it easier to search for.


-- 

Scott L. McGregor		mcgregor@netcom.com
President			tel: 408-985-1824
Prescient Software, Inc.	fax: 408-985-1936
3494 Yuba Avenue
San Jose, CA 95117-2967
Newsgroups: comp.org.eff.talk
Subject: Re: Patents:  What they a
From: john.eichler@grapevine.lrk.ar.us (John Eichler) 
Date: 11 Oct 92 09:08:00 GMT
Reply-To: john.eichler@grapevine.lrk.ar.us (John Eichler) 
Distribution: world
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 Eichler
---

---
 . SM 1.06 ----- . Email: john.eichler@grapevine.lrk.ar.us
From: Roger.Franz@p0.f16.n8012.z86.toadnet.org (Roger Franz)
Newsgroups: comp.org.eff.talk
Subject: RE: SC and U.S. Constitutional Interpretation
Date: Fri,  9 Oct 92 10:34:51 CDT
Organization: FidoNet node 86:8012/16.0 - Java Shoppe, Manchester MO


 > MG: >interpret the Constitution since it isn't given such a monopoly 
 > MG: in the U.S. Constitution. 
 
 > MG: Your position about the Supreme Court's role is contrary to the 
 > MG: generally 
 > MG: accepted view in the United States of the role of the United 
 > MG: States 
 > MG: Supreme Court. 
 
The SC does have the power to declare a particular interpretation "the law of the land", but the SC does not, by any means, have a monopoly on interpreting the Constitution. I can certainly interpret the Constitution (the Constitution no where prohibits me from reading or thinking or SPEAKING about the Constitution), as can you (after all, you just did, didn't you?). While my interpretation of the Constitution (or yours) might not carry the same weight the SC's interpretation does, WE STILL HAVE THE RIGHT 

 
That does not mean that what we say has the force of law. 
 
 > MG: Why? Almost everyone knows that when the subject is Constitutional 
 > MG: Law, 
 > MG: one is talking about either the Constitution itself or aboutwhat 
 > MG: the 
 > MG: Supreme Court says the Constitution says. No need for a continual 
 > MG: qualifier. 
 
What the SC says is unconstitutional varies from year to year, case to case, generation to generation, and from one set of justices to another. 
 
Roger 

--- Opus-CBCS 1.99.13
 * Origin: Bob and Rog's Java Shoppe (86:8012/16.0)
--  
Roger Franz - via Toadnet/UUCP Gateway 86:86/200
UUCP: ....!wupost!8012!16.0!Roger.Franz
INTERNET: Roger.Franz@p0.f16.n8012.z86.toadnet.org
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: Sun, 11 Oct 1992 03:30:44 GMT

In article <id.DQYT.W64@ferranti.com> peter@ferranti.com (peter da silva) writes:
>I'm sorry, Scott, but I can't see your patent clearing house as being anything
>more than a more expensive version of the Gnu Public License, with the
>additional burden that you can be liable under the law without having touched
>it. Stallman would be delighted... I can see it now: the FSF patent
>clearinghouse: if you use any of these patents you must release any other
>patents on your code to the clearinghouse or the public domain.
> 
>The end product will be exactly the same situation as now, except a zillion
>lawyers feeding on the carcasses of the *real* free software community.
>
>No thanks...

On the contrary, the current GNU  system leaves one liable not only for
patent infringement, but for copyright and trade secret infringement.
You might win, but you would still have to defend against a frivolous
suit.  In the clearing house situation you are indemnified against
such suits from other members. Fewer lawsuits are likely, not more.

There is not an additional burden, you can be sued under the GNU
system even without a clearinghouse, and even without patents.  And it
is mainly only more expensive to for profit companies, but at an
offsetting reduction of the cost of licensing, and greater
availability of licensed material. 

-- 

Scott L. McGregor		mcgregor@netcom.com
President			tel: 408-985-1824
Prescient Software, Inc.	fax: 408-985-1936
3494 Yuba Avenue
San Jose, CA 95117-2967



Newsgroups: comp.org.eff.talk