HDTenEightyP/NetNews huggingface dataset:
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: 1 Oct 1992 17:42:59 GMT
Organization: Thinking Machines Corporation, Cambridge MA, USA
Distribution: inet
NNTP-Posting-Host: telecaster.think.com

In article <1992Oct1.091739.10285@netcom.com> mcgregor@netcom.com (Scott Mcgregor) writes:
>In article <1adcdkINNljf@early-bird.think.com> barmar@think.com (Barry Margolin) writes:
>>Changing signals on a modem control line is a physical process, as is
>>specific physical transformation that is performed using the result.
>>That's what makes the physical transformation inessential.
>I don't follow this. This seems to be saying that it is inessential
>because it is physical.

It's easy to twist my words by taking them out of context.  You edited out
the critical second sentence in my paragraph.  Here's what I actually wrote:

>>Changing signals on a modem control line is a physical process, as is
>>changing polarities on a magnetic medium.  The problem is that the patent
>>holders claim that their patent covers both of these, and extends to any
>>other medium.  I.e., they claim that any process that performs the
>>compression algorithm is covered by their patent, regardless of the
>>specific physical transformation that is performed using the result.
>>That's what makes the physical transformation inessential.

The physical process isn't inessential because it's physical, it's
inessential because the patent holder doesn't restrict their claim to any
specific physical process.  They claim exclusive rights to all physical
processes (including ones that haven't been thought of yet) that involve
this particular mental process (i.e. algorithm) as a component.
-- 
Barry Margolin
System Manager, Thinking Machines Corp.

barmar@think.com          {uunet,harvard}!think!barmar
Newsgroups: comp.org.eff.talk,misc.int-property,alt.suit.att-bsdi,comp.unix.bsd
From: kdenning@portal.hq.videocart.com (Karl Denninger)
Subject: Re: FBI digital telephony bill?  (Tapping BBSes)
Summary: This IS the telephony bill
Keywords: significant words from a document used as an index to content
Organization: VideOcart Inc.
Date: Mon, 28 Sep 1992 13:10:52 GMT

In article <Bv91on.7zB@ibmpcug.co.uk> gtoal@ibmpcug.co.uk (Graham Toal) writes:
>In alt.irc article <Bv7L19.DrE@news.cso.uiuc.edu> StarOwl@uiuc.edu writes:
>:Of course if you really like that law, then perhaps someone ought to
>:mention something about the "electronic communications monitoring"
>:bill in Congress right now.  The FBI/CIA want BBS and USENET/Internet/
>:bitnet providers to implement some way for the FBI to monitor all
>:communications going through those sites from a remote monitoring
>:station.  The penalty for service providers' noncompliance would
>:be either $10,000 or $100,000 per day (I forget which).
>
>Is this urban legend, or some adjunct to the FBI digital telephony bill?
>
>I haven't heard of this, so if you know something please post.

Read that telephony bill.  It includes >ALL SERVICE PROVIDERS<, which means
BBS systems, Internet sites, etc.  There is NO reasonable exemption.

It places enforcement into the hands of the Attorney General, and authorizes 
>CIVIL FINES< of $10k per day, with NO TRIAL REQUIRED (these are civil fines,
you see, just like civil forfeiture).  If you get targeted for enforcement
action under this bill you're history.

For Internet sites, BBSs and providers this would be a DISASTER.  The bill 
also specifies that your equipment MUST be capable of separating out the 
desired "targets" communications, leaving all others alone.   Now, just how
do you intend to do that on the Internet, or on your BBS?

THERE IS NOT AN OPERATING SYSTEM OR ROUTER ON THE PLANET RIGHT NOW WHICH CAN
DO THIS WITH THE GRANULARITY THE BILL REQUIRES.

Get ready to pay lots of $10k fines if this bill becomes law.

Call your Congresscritters and make damn sure it doesn't pass.

--
Karl Denninger 		Inet:  kdenning@hq.videocart.com
VideOcart Inc.		Voice: (312) 987-5022
From: JEFF.MILTON@f402.n2603.z1.fidonet.org (JEFF MILTON)
Newsgroups: comp.org.eff.talk
Subject: Sysops' Top 20 Legal Ques
Date: Sat, 26 Sep 92 14:24:00 PST
Organization: FidoNet node 1:2603/402 - FPX-change BBS, New York NY

MG>What questions do you have? Please post them here, or send them to me at
MG>mnemonic@eff.org.

Hello Mike,
Well, the first question I have is probably the most obvious
one:

What liability does a sysop hold for illegal software
uploaded to his/her board that he/she is not aware of?


Thanks, jeff


 * OLX 2.1 TD * FPX-change: Home of FPXNet (212)254-2528 *FREE*


--  
uucp: uunet!m2xenix!puddle!2603!402!JEFF.MILTON
Internet: JEFF.MILTON@f402.n2603.z1.fidonet.org
Newsgroups: comp.org.eff.talk,comp.unix.bsd,comp.os.mach,misc.int-property,alt.suit.att-bsdi,comp.sys.mac.advocacy
From: merlin@lerami.lerctr.org (David Hayes)
Subject: Re: Letter asking for help with Apple from the US VP
Date: Sat, 26 Sep 1992 22:51:38 GMT
Distribution: usa
Organization: Not Bloody Likely!

In article <1992Sep24.140807.20755@rwwa.COM> witr@rwwa.com writes:
>You can violate a law `accidentally', but this is not considered a 
>reason for eliminating the law.  Patents are part of the public record.
>Anyone of normal inteligence can easily research patents to the extent
>necessary to determine if your invention is the subject of one or more
>patents.  Ignorance is no excuse in this matter, and such a criticism
>is invalid.

Well, Robert, this ability to "easily research patents" would be news to
the folks at Weslaw and Nexus, as well as patent attorneys, who make large
sums of money precisely because it is not easy to research patents. 

However, it is possible that all these patent attorneys are mistaken. Maybe
it really is easy for anyone of normal intelligence to do a patent search.
Since it's so easy, you can make your point by proof through demonstration.

I work for a software company developing a new product. They have a new
method of determining the user's ID over a network, so that each user's 
files are available only to that user. Since it's so simple, perhaps
you'd volunteer to do the patent search for us? If you won't volunteer,
why not?

While it is possible for a person of normal intelligence to do a patent
search, I dispute your assertion that it is easy. It is also not cheap.
You can work your way through the Patent & Trademark Office's files for
free, but you must fly yourself to Washington to do so. Access by an
online service is shockingly expensive.

> 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

    David Hayes    merlin@lerami.lerctr.org
Newsgroups: comp.org.eff.talk,comp.unix.bsd,comp.os.mach,misc.int-property,alt.suit.att-bsdi,comp.sys.mac.advocacy
From: reinitz-john@CS.YALE.EDU (John Reinitz)
Subject: Re: Letter asking for help with Apple from the US VP
Summary: Mr Withrow's interests become clearer. 
Organization: Yale University Theoretical Biology Collective
Distribution: usa
Date: Tue, 29 Sep 1992 16:48:49 GMT

In article <1992Sep28.182539.28418@rwwa.COM> witr@rwwa.com writes:

>| Since it's so simple, perhaps you'd volunteer to do the patent search
>| for us? If you won't volunteer, why not?
>
>I'd be glad to volunteer, in consideration for the appropriate fee (i.e.,
>my normal consulting rate, plus expenses).  Time is money... ;-)

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


> 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

John Reinitz

Newsgroups: comp.org.eff.talk,misc.int-property,alt.suit.att-bsdi,comp.unix.bsd
From: dhesi@rahul.net (Rahul Dhesi)
Subject: Re: Patents: What they are. What they aren't. Other factors.
Organization: a2i network
Distribution: usa
Date: Fri, 2 Oct 1992 17:20:33 GMT

In <1992Oct2.142625.9158@rwwa.COM> witr@rwwa.COM (Robert Withrow) writes:

>...at no time can you separate ``data'' from *some* physical [phenomenon]...

Quantum mechanics and related fields of physics have long established
that "information" has qualities that are completely independent of the
medium in which the information is embodied.  And the medium in which
the information is embodied can be as intangible as a beam of light, or
as abstract as the motion of a particle (not the particles itself), or
as nonphysical as the cordinates of a nonexistent point in an arbitrary
co-ordinate system.

Roughly the same is true of energy, of which heat is but one form.
-- 
Rahul Dhesi <dhesi@rahul.net>
also:  dhesi@cirrus.com
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)
Date: Thu, 1 Oct 1992 09:32:13 GMT

In article <16954.Oct101.56.4292@virtualnews.nyu.edu> brnstnd@nyu.edu (D. J. Bernstein) writes:
>In article <1992Sep30.143205.3171@rwwa.COM> witr@rwwa.com writes:
>> But the rubber-curing patent
>> doesn't claim the *algorithm*, it claims the *process*.
>
>As defined by the law, ``algorithm'' is a synonym for ``process.''
>
>Most people familiar with the word ``algorithm'' would consider it at
>least a special case of ``process.''
>
>What distinction are you attempting to draw?


This is the crux of our whole semantic arguing isn't. That on the one
hand as difined by law (I'll take Bernstein's word for it) algorithm and
process are the same.  At the same time, the patent law has always
explicitly allowed "process" patents but forbidden "algorithm"
patents.  Since they are synonymous Bernstein can always argue for a
process patent to be overturned by claiming it is really an
"algorithm" patent.  But should I suggest that treating algorithm
patents and process patents the same would undermine process patents,
Bernstein dispenses with his claim of synonymity and follows the
patent office view that they are distinct.  Clearly the claims that
they are synonymous and distinct are logically irreconcilable. You
can't "reason" to a result based on them--or rather you can reason to
any result, because the antecedent must be false. Hence the wandering
in circles that Bernstein observes in our discussions as we shift from
one assumption to the other. 




-- 

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


Newsgroups: comp.org.eff.talk,misc.int-property,alt.suit.att-bsdi
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 09:23:17 GMT

From mcgregor Sat Oct  3 01:46:28 PDT 1992
Article: 1113 of misc.int-property
Newsgroups: comp.org.eff.talk,misc.int-property,alt.suit.att-bsdi
From: jpk@Ingres.COM (Jon Krueger)
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: 29 Sep 92 18:58:31 GMT
Reply-To: jpk@Ingres.COM (Jon Krueger)
Distribution: usa
Organization: Ask Computer Systems Inc., Ingres Division, Alameda CA 94501

Juergen Menden fragt:
> take a group of people, who are developing software
> for public use, but are not selling anything (let us call
> them FSF, but any other name would do). Do you mean, these
> people, called FSF, can use any patent they find in their
> programs, because they aren't selling them?

Unfortunately, no.  I missed an important detail.  The theory is, once
you ship or share your code, its users are deriving value from any
patents involved.  The patent holder(s) are not getting paid for this
value.  Their patent(s) entitle them exactly to deny this sort of use.
This is why FSF needs to avoid patents in GNU.

What you are permitted is to study the method disclosed in the patent,
try it, build working models, learn from it, evaluate it.  This is
what trade secrets deny you.  The theory was that when patent expired,
all methods and their merits would be known and freely available.

-- Jon
--
Jon Krueger  jpk@ingres.com
From: Mike.Riddle@inns.omahug.org (Mike Riddle)
Newsgroups: comp.org.eff.talk
Subject: SYSLAW: A Review
Date: 02 Oct 92 16:44:06 CST
Reply-To: mike.riddle@inns.omahug.org
Organization: Inns of Court, Papillion, NE
Followup-To: comp.org.eff.talk

 _SYSLAW_, by Lance Rose, Esq & Jonathan Wallace, Esq.
    
(Second Edition) Publ. LOL Productions in conjunction with PC
Information Group Inc.  1126 E. Broadway, Winona, MN 55987
  
     "....does an admirable job of answering questions on copyright issues,
trademarks, what you can put online and what you can't.  .... and what
our legal liabilities are as the result of your actions online based on
current interpretations of law, how to handle e-mail privacy issues and
more, in a very practical sense.
     "Syslaw is must reading for everyone who operates, or contemplates
operating a BBS."    Jack Rickard Editor and Publisher Boardwatch Mag.

     In the FWIW department, I have it at the office as a reference/finding
aid, and have corresponded with Lance Rose on Compuserve.  I also recommend
it, although I caution you when you read it, to remember the qualifiers 
Lance uses.  (Jonathan did most of the actual writing on the first one,
Lance on the second).  I say that because, as Lance points out, there are
just a few court cases around that directly address BBS and email issues.
Few of those are in any way precedential, although they certainly could
be cited as persuasive.  This is still uncharted legal territory, which is
why, when asked about carrying XXX.GIF, for example, I always ask if the
sysop involved wants to be a test case.  :-)

    To order it, you can call PCIG at 800-321-8285.  $34.95 + s/h, if I
remember correctly.

          <<<< insert standard disclaimer here >>>>
mike.riddle@inns.omahug.org        |  Nebraska Inns of Court
bc335@cleveland.freenet.edu        |  +1 402 593 1192 (Data)
Sysop of 1:285/27@Fidonet          |  3/12/24/9600 V.32/V.42bis

Newsgroups: comp.org.eff.talk
From: jkp@cs.HUT.FI (Jyrki Kuoppala)
Subject: Re: EFFector Online 3.06: Bruce Sterling
Reply-To: jkp@cs.HUT.FI (Jyrki Kuoppala)
Organization: Helsinki University of Technology, Finland
Date: Thu, 1 Oct 1992 07:31:06 GMT

>                            Bruce Sterling
>                         bruces@well.sf.ca.us

>The single most stinging example of this syndrome is "Pengo," a member
>of the German hacker-group that broke into Internet computers while in
>the pay of the KGB. He told German police, and the judge at the trial of
>his co-conspirators, that he was inspired by NEUROMANCER and John
>Brunner's SHOCKWAVE RIDER.
>
>I didn't write NEUROMANCER. I did, however, read it in manuscript and
>offered many purportedly helpful comments. I praised the book publicly
>and repeatedly and at length. I've done everything I can to get people
>to read this book.
>
>I don't recall cautioning Gibson that his novel might lead to anarchist
>hackers selling their expertise to the ferocious and repulsive apparat
>that gave the world the Lubyanka and the Gulag Archipelago. I don't
>think I could have issued any such caution, even if I'd felt the danger
>of such a possibility, which I didn't. I still don't know in what
>fashion Gibson might have changed his book to avoid inciting evildoers,
>while still retaining the integrity of his vision -- the very quality
>about the book that makes it compelling and worthwhile.

I don't know if Bruce is reading this, but anyway I would be
interested in knowing people's viewpoint on this:

Is it equally evil to work for U.S. government?

//Jyrki
Xref: sparky comp.org.eff.talk:5957 misc.int-property:1021 alt.suit.att-bsdi:343 comp.unix.bsd:6417
From: brnstnd@nyu.edu (D. J. Bernstein)
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: 27 Sep 92 05:07:57 GMT
Organization: IR

In article <1992Sep26.161204.24573@rwwa.COM> witr@rwwa.com writes:
> It seems to me that to claim that patents *should not* apply to software
> involves some claim that software doesn't deserve protection as
> intellectual property.

Software is protected by copyright.

There is good reason to believe that ``process,'' within the context of
patent law, means solely ``physical process.'' According to the courts,
mental processes are not patentable; laws of nature and mathematical
algorithms, even when applied to particular fields of technology, are
not patentable; business methods are not patentable. The Supreme Court
has not yet ruled on what are usually called ``software patents.''

My favorite argument that mental processes *should not* be patentable is
that there is no way to tell when two mental processes are the same.
Indeed, the Patent Office has often failed to detect that the subject of
a mental process patent is the same as a process in the prior art, or a
mathematical algorithm, or even a previous patent.

Other people have other arguments that algorithms and software *should
not* be patentable. None of them are based on the claim that software is
always obvious (or old).

> If something like patents
> are not available to software writers then the only avaliable protection
> (unless you eliminate property rights en-toto) is secrecy.

Protection is not the purpose of intellectual property law! Read
prep.ai.mit.edu:pub/lpf/laf-fallacies.texi.

---Dan
Xref: sparky comp.org.eff.talk:6021 misc.int-property:1045 alt.suit.att-bsdi:369
From: grady@public.BTR.COM ( )
Newsgroups: comp.org.eff.talk
Subject: Re: FBI digital telephony bill?  (Tapping BBSes)
Keywords: significant words from a document used as an index to content
Date: 29 Sep 92 01:32:40 GMT
Organization: BTR Public Access UNIX, MtnView CA. Contact: Customer Service cs@BTR.COM

And you wonder why hackers are becoming interested in
high-speed narrow bandwidth packet radio links...


Grady KD6ETH/AA

-- 
Grady Ward  grady@btr.com  Moby Lexicons
Newsgroups: comp.org.eff.talk
From: awestrop@nyx.cs.du.edu (Alan Westrope)
Subject: Re: 386 Box + Unix
X-Disclaimer: Nyx is a public access Unix system run by the University
	of Denver for the Denver community.  The University has neither
	control over nor responsibility for the opinions of users.
Organization: Nyx, Public Access Unix at U. of Denver Math/CS dept.
Distribution: inet
Date: Mon, 28 Sep 92 13:51:48 GMT

In article <ir34263@pro-smof.cts.com> wixer!cactus.org!wixer!pro-smof.cts.com!shiva@cactus.org (System Smof) writes:
>Is this BSD386 "free" if you already have ftp capability and "not free" if
>you can't use ftp?

You can get it (without some bells and whistles, I'm sure!) by sending a
high-density 3.5 or 5.25 floppy and an addressed, stamped diskette mailer to:

Tiny 386BSD, Dr. Dobb's Journal, 411 Borel Ave., San Mateo, CA 94402

The authors have been doing a series of articles in DDJ on the process of
porting to the 386.  The address above and info on installation are in the
July '92 issue.  There are no specifics on what's left out in comparison to
the TAR-format distributions, but while not quite "free", it's sure cheap!

-- Alan
--
_______________________________________________________________________________
Alan Westrope           		"Only connect..."
awestrop@nyx.cs.du.edu   		 E. M. Forster, _Howard's End_ 
-------------------------------------------------------------------------------
From: max@underg.UUCP (Max Cray)
Newsgroups: comp.org.eff.talk
Subject: Re: Help! Re:Archie
Date: Mon, 28 Sep 92 12:53:30 EDT
Organization: Underground Computing Foundation

ygoland@edison.seas.ucla.edu (The Jester) writes:

> I know what archie is but I don't know how to use it. I poked around
> ftp.eff.org but couldn't find any articles on how to use archie (or
> wais for that matter). It would be ultimately neato kean if:
> A.Someone could post nice detailed information on how to use archie
> and wais to this list (since eff is very concerned about wide spread
> use of the net and it's resources)

Hey Jester, most cool dude. Try sending mail to archie@archie.rutgers.edu
with the word 'help' in the body. Also I am working on a file on how
to use archie and ftpmail in combination to snarf files with your mail
account for the next issue of Digital Free Press.
   There was an excellent article on wais by none other than mycroft
(the dude that hacked the eff machine a while back) in Phrack a few
issues back. Of course the Phracks are all available at ftp.eff.org,
ftp.uu.net, and other places.

                                          -= Max =-
...!uunet!underg!max
...!cactus.org!underg!max
---------------------------------------------------------------------
 I program in C because it turns women on...
Newsgroups: comp.org.eff.talk,misc.int-property,alt.suit.att-bsdi
From: mnemonic@eff.org (Mike Godwin)
Subject: Re: FBI digital telephony bill?  (Tapping BBSes)
Originator: mnemonic@eff.org
Keywords: significant words from a document used as an index to content
Organization: Electronic Frontier Foundation
Date: Mon, 28 Sep 1992 03:29:00 GMT

In article <Bv91on.7zB@ibmpcug.co.uk> gtoal@ibmpcug.co.uk (Graham Toal) writes:
>In alt.irc article <Bv7L19.DrE@news.cso.uiuc.edu> StarOwl@uiuc.edu writes:
>:Of course if you really like that law, then perhaps someone ought to
>:mention something about the "electronic communications monitoring"
>:bill in Congress right now.  The FBI/CIA want BBS and USENET/Internet/
>:bitnet providers to implement some way for the FBI to monitor all
>:communications going through those sites from a remote monitoring
>:station.  The penalty for service providers' noncompliance would
>:be either $10,000 or $100,000 per day (I forget which).
>
>Is this urban legend, or some adjunct to the FBI digital telephony bill?

The $10,000-per-day penalty is specified in the bill.


--Mike




-- 
Mike Godwin,    |"The meeting of two personalities is like the contact 
mnemonic@eff.org| of two chemical substances: if there is any reaction, 
(617) 864-0665  | both are transformed."
EFF, Cambridge  |                           --Carl Jung 
Xref: sparky comp.org.eff.talk:6279 alt.irc:3413
From: mandel@unix.SRI.COM (Thomas F. Mandel)
Newsgroups: comp.org.eff.talk,alt.irc
Subject: IRC discussion of security and cyberspace
Keywords: Security, Cyberspace, Hackers, Networks
Date: 6 Oct 92 01:26:53 GMT
Followup-To: comp.org.eff.talk
Organization: SRI International, Menlo Park, CA


            IRC Discussion of Security and Cyberspace
                                 
SRI International is conducting a study looking at the future of
security in cyberspace.  As part of this work, SRI's Donn Parker
and some colleagues will be participating in an IRC discussion on
the subject on Wednesday and Thursday (October 7-8th) from about
3pm-8pm Pacific Daylight Time (6pm-11pm EDT), and interested
parties are invited to join in.
-- 
Tom Mandel		mandel@unix.sri.com

The opinions stated here are my own and not those of anyone else.
Newsgroups: comp.org.eff.talk,misc.int-property,alt.suit.att-bsdi,comp.unix.bsd