HDTenEightyP/NetNews huggingface dataset:
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: 29 Sep 92 16:07:34 GMT
Article-I.D.: nutrimat.FRIEDMAN.92Sep29120734
	<1992Sep28.234246.10011@pony.Ingres.COM>
	<1992Sep29.141554.6947@Informatik.TU-Muenchen.DE>
Followup-To: comp.org.eff.talk
Organization: Free Software Foundation, 675 Mass Ave. Cambridge, MA 02139
In-reply-to: menden@Informatik.TU-Muenchen.DE's message of 29 Sep 92 14:15:54 GMT

In article <1992Sep29.141554.6947@Informatik.TU-Muenchen.DE> menden@Informatik.TU-Muenchen.DE (Juergen Menden) writes:
>Let's 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? I think that's
>confusing.

   That's probably a bad example, especially if you're going to try to tie
this to what the FSF is doing.  The FSF's software is not only not public
domain, but we even sell it.  Our license simply allows other people to do
the same.
From: jfh@reef.cis.ufl.edu (James F. Hranicky)
Newsgroups: comp.org.eff.talk
Subject: Patents
Date: 4 Oct 92 22:58:10 GMT
Organization: Univ. of Florida CIS Dept.

It seems to me that an inventor of an idea or product should be allowed
to gain benefit from selling either for others use. The inventor of some
algorithm should be allowed to patent it and gain compensation from others'
use, because without him, they would not have been able to use it in the
first place. I also feel that someone who independently invents something
someone else has already invented should be entitled to the same benefit,
if they haven't stolen the idea.

Anyone agree? Anyone have any idea how to implement this? (I don't)

Jim Hranicky (jfh@reef.cis.ufl.edu)

Newsgroups: comp.org.eff.talk,misc.int-property,alt.suit.att-bsdi,comp.unix.bsd
From: kelsey@mdd.comm.mot.com (Joe Kelsey)
Subject: Re: Patents: What they are. What they aren't. Other factors.
Organization: Motorola, Mobile Data Division - Seattle, WA
Distribution: na
Date: Fri, 2 Oct 1992 16:08:35 GMT

Finally, Scott presents a clear example of how to patent a *physical* device
which *incidentally* includes a computer program:

In <1992Oct2.013258.20331@netcom.com> mcgregor@netcom.com (Scott Mcgregor) writes:
>What if the putative question is not the invention of a data
>compression algorithm but the invention of a faster modem, in which
>data copression is just a means to achieve that increased speed. Is
>not the signaling essential in such a case? If the invention is a disk
>controller which stores more apparent signals in a constant area
>(again where data compression is a means to that end) is the disk and
>tape irrelevant? I'm comfortable opposing the patenting of a data
>compression ALGORITHM. I'd also oppose the patenting of the Diamond
>vs. Dienr controller ALGORITHM. But not the extention of that to the outlawing
>of patents on modems or disk controllers or factories that use them. If Mr.
>Bernstein agrees that the latter physical devices and process
>improvements (i.e. a faster modem by means of applying the following
>steps...)  should be patentable then we are really in agreement.  

The modem he claims above describes the exact same *patentable* device as the
Diamond vs. Diehr ``rubber curing'' patent -- you can patent the device
itself, but that patent provides no special protection to the algorithm used
within the device.  This means that I can then use the same algorithm to
perform data transformations for whatever purpose I want and unless I package
the algorithm into a device which exactly performs the same electrical
transformations (i.e., has an RS232 port on one side and an RJ11 port on the
other with a ``black box'' in the middle), my software does not infringe!
Thank you Scott for proving the ``inessential'' nature of the physical process
in the LZW patent!

It's just too bad that we all had to wade through hundreds of lines of quoted
material and irrellevant discussion by Scott in order for him to prove that he
completely agrees with Dan.  Now I can ignore him if he ever tries to claim a
patent on software in the future, since he just stated that you can't patent
software!

/Joe
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: Tue, 29 Sep 1992 15:40:25 GMT

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

Hackers?  Any sane person, I would say.  And try spread spectrum
instead, it's harder to trace.

//Jyrki
Newsgroups: comp.org.eff.talk
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: Sat, 3 Oct 1992 16:10:33 GMT

In article <id.3ART.ZBJ@ferranti.com>,
  peter@ferranti.com (peter da silva) writes:

| If you have a 100 line subroutine it's either pretty much a single case
| statement, or it's too long, and should be counted for (at least!) several
| potential patent violations.

All of this hand-wringing about the number of <whatever> == number of potential
patent infringements is largely absurd.  It is like claiming that one
must, when building an airplane, patent-search every nut, bolt, washer, wire,
shim, grease, and whatnot, *and* every *combination* of nuts, bolts, washers,
wires, shims, greases, and whatnots.

-- 
 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: jim@ferkel.ucsb.edu (Jim Lick)
Subject: Re: EFFector Online 3.06: Bruce Sterling
Organization: University of California, Santa Barbara
Date: Tue, 6 Oct 1992 09:01:08 GMT

In <BvIonu.K0p@Novell.COM> alex@otis (The Console DJ) writes:
>Wasn't there a thing in the Constitution that gave you the right to face
>whoever is accussing you of a crime??   I'm wrong, huh?

The tense you use in asking the question answers it as well.  The rights
laid out in the first several ammendments to the constitution are fairly
clear.  In reality, they have been whittled away at over the last two
centuries, where today nearly every right therein has been legislated away
by somebody.  It's a slippery slope, and we keep adding exceptions to the
rules of the constitution every day.

PS- Fix your newsposter to not mangle your email address.


                            Jim Lick		       
Work: University of California	| Play: 1236 Camino Meleno
      Santa Barbara		|       Santa Barbara, CA 93111-1007
      Dept. of Mechanical Engr. |	(805) 964-2088 voice/msg
      2311 Engr II Building     |	(805) MUD-SPY1 data
      (805) 893-4113            |       jim@tcp.com
      jim@ferkel.ucsb.edu	| This space intentionally left blank
From: gtoal@ibmpcug.co.uk (Graham Toal)
Newsgroups: comp.org.eff.talk
Subject: Re: 386 Box + Unix
Date: 27 Sep 92 18:47:17 GMT
Followup-To: comp.sys.bsd
Organization: The IBM PC User Group, UK.

In article <1734.67.uupcb@digund.uucp> 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...
> 
>                                Predat0r
>                                                  


Part of the lack of visibility of cheap unix systems comes from 1) 386bsd
and Linux are still relatively new, and if you put them on your machine
you really have to be a semi-competant hacker rather than just a user;
and 2) since they're free, the people distributing them don't have much
of a budget for advertising.  [I know this, because I'm trying to drum
up some magazine reviews for the guys here at pcug who distribute 386bsd
in Britain]

However, the software *is* there if you can install it, and it *doesn't*
need big meaty 486's to run - the 386bsd source archive here (rachel.ibmpcug
.co.uk) was until recently a meagre 16MHz 386Sx.  More than adequate as
a single-user system, though it was upgraded recently to cope with a great
increase in the number of users.  And, since you asked, - cheaply.
400 pounds ($750) for a 50MHz 486.  Does that answer your question?

G
PS Followups redirected to comp.sys.bsd
--
From: dick.zeitlin%acc1bbs@ssr.com (Dick Zeitlin) 
Newsgroups: comp.org.eff.talk
Subject: Re: Letter asking for hel
Date: 26 Sep 92 21:45:00 GMT
Distribution: world
Organization: Advanced Computer Concepts BBS, New Rochelle, NY 914-654-1981
Reply-To: dick.zeitlin%acc1bbs@ssr.com (Dick Zeitlin) 

RW> .                                       Those who claim that an ``invention
  > .is exactly identical to an ``idea'' are correct only in the most general
  > .sense, where everything is an idea.

No.  An invention is the expression of an idea.

RW> .
  > .[...] was ``obvious to persons of ordinary skill in the art''

That can only be determined by a legal proceeding or by the presentation
of essentially identical prior art.  Unfortunately, the determination
isn't always in line with "reality."

  > .                               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.

Then I guess most patent attorneys and patent office examiners are not
of normal intelligence.  It usually takes an examiner quite a while to
determine whether your invention is the subject of prior art, and even
then he's often not too accurate in that determination.  Ditto for the
patent attorneys that prepare the application.

RW> .The same can be said of *any* legal action brought against you, and
  > .thus does not constitute a valid criticism of the patent system.

No more (nor less) than it constitutes a valid criticism of the entire
legal system.  FWIW, you might want to review the proceedings of the
patent battle over FM stereo.  GE won by dint of dragging it through the
courts long enough to exhaust the opposition resources.

RW> .| Patent laws therefore discriminate very strongly against individuals
  > .| and small businesses in favor of large companies.

RW> .This claim is absurd!  Many of the most important and valuable patents gra
  > .have been granted to individuals and small businesses.

No, it's not absurd.  There are far more examples of large companies
winning patent litigation over individual inventors or small
companies than of small companies or inventors persevering over
large companies.  I'll grant you that it was different as recently as 40
years ago, but now...

Unfortunately, I've lived through it "up close and personal."  I don't
have any great admiration for the patent system as it currently exists.

        D/


 * OLX 2.2 * Dick.Zeitlin%acc1bbs@ssr.com
                                               
Newsgroups: comp.org.eff.talk
From: mnemonic@eff.org (Mike Godwin)
Subject: Re: Sysops' Top 20 Legal Ques
Originator: mnemonic@eff.org
Organization: Electronic Frontier Foundation
Date: Thu, 1 Oct 1992 03:10:04 GMT

In article <4128.2AC828FD@puddle.fidonet.org> JEFF.MILTON@f402.n2603.z1.fidonet.org (JEFF MILTON) writes:

>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?

No criminal liability if the sysop does not know or have reason to know
that the software has been uploaded in violation of copyright. (Note:
the sysop of a "pirate" bulletin board always has reason to know that he's
getting illegal software.)

Possible civil liability (fines only, not prison time) for the "innocent
infringer" who unknowingly distributes copyrighted software without proper
authorization by the copyright holder.



--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 
Newsgroups: comp.org.eff.talk,misc.int-property,alt.suit.att-bsdi,comp.unix.bsd
From: mnemonic@eff.org (Mike Godwin)
Subject: Re: Re- EFFector Online 3.06- B
Originator: mnemonic@eff.org
Organization: Electronic Frontier Foundation
Date: Tue, 6 Oct 1992 16:58:59 GMT

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? 

Regardless of whether one thinks drugs are bad (for the most part, I don't
think they should be illegal), one is hardput to come up with examples of
great political activists and civilly disobedient protestors who
conditioned their activity on the receipt of drugs. Perhaps you can think
of some counterexamples.

>OK, I admit that that's an out-of-context quote.  You said, "committed
>crimes and sought to be paid for these crimes in ..." etc.  As a matter of
>first principles: Do you accept that sometimes it is moral to commit a
>crime?

Yes.

>If it is ever moral to commit a crime, then why is it immoral to
>get paid for committing that crime?

Not my point at all--you've partaken of a logical confusion here.
I never said that getting paid for the crime makes the crime immoral.
What I've said is that conditioning one's actions on the receipt of money
(or any other form of payment) tends to undercut any argument that one is
acting out of morality rather than venality.

>Would it be a fair guess that you're
>position is that if you're going to do something as borderline moral as
>breaking the law, you should be required to prove the innocence of your
>motives by doing so in such a way that you yourself do not gain personally
>by it?

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.


--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:6034 misc.int-property:1054 alt.suit.att-bsdi:376
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: 29 Sep 92 15:54:59
Organization: Thinking Machines Corporation, Cambridge Mass., USA
Distribution: usa
	<RLK.92Sep28183832@underprize.think.com>
	<1992Sep28.234246.10011@pony.Ingres.COM>
	<RLK.92Sep29102921@underprize.think.com>
	<1992Sep29.183828.8844@pony.Ingres.COM>
NNTP-Posting-Host: underprize.think.com
In-reply-to: jpk@Ingres.COM's message of 29 Sep 92 18:38:27 GMT

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.

Is this true in countries with a first-to-file rather than a
first-to-invent system?
--
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: gast@oahu.cs.ucla.edu (David Gast)
Subject: Re: Compression (Re: Letter asking for help with Apple from the US VP
Organization: UCLA, Computer Science Department
Distribution: usa
Date: Wed, 30 Sep 92 23:34:07 GMT

In article <1992Sep30.134454.2946@rwwa.COM> witr@rwwa.com writes:
>In article <1992Sep29.220513.3753@cs.ucla.edu>, 
>  gast@oahu.cs.ucla.edu (David Gast) writes:
>
>You misattributed Mr. Bernstein's remarks to me. 

My apologies.

>
>Besides which, you say:
>
>| First, if patent law were being followed correctly, it would be impossible
>| for two patents on the same algorithm.
>
>If patent law were being followed correctly you couldn't patent algorithms.

Let me rephrase since some people, including judges, legislators, and the
like, believe you should be able to patent algorithms (even under existing
law).  For the record, I don't think algorithms should be patented.

If patent law were being followed correctly, it would be impossible for
there to be two patents covering the same invention.  That is, the patent
office screwed up even if one believes there should be one patent for
compression.  There should not be two patents.

>I believe the patents you mention claim devices that *use* these algorithms.

The lecture I heard did not make this point, you may be correct.

David
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 19:04:46 GMT

In article <1992Oct1.152059.28666@eff.org>, mnemonic@eff (Mike Godwin) writes:
[ selling their expertise to Soviet Union (perhaps KGB) ]

>>Is it equally evil to work for U.S. government?
>
>What do *you* think, Jyrki? 

I think it depends very much on the arm of the government.
Considering what I know about the recent U.S. foreign policy and
recent history, I don't see much difference between what was mentioned
and selling one's expertise to agencies like the CIA or DEA.

>Incidentally, you should know that Bruce Sterling has long maintained
>correspondences with Soviet science-fiction fans and writers and
>publishers of samizdata. He has had countless first-hand accounts of life
>in the Soviet Union on which to base his opinion.
>
>If you are reading his comments here as some kind of reflexive U.S.
>chauvinism, you haven't read enough Bruce Sterling.

I don't think I understand what you mean here.  I was commenting on
the passage of one Bruce's article, not his person.  I don't see the
relevance of whether I have read his books or not.

>I think it is reasonable to draw a moral distinction between "working for
>the U.S. government" and the Hannover Hackers' attempts to break into
>American systems in order to get money and drugs.

I don't think it is reasonable to do that.  If you work for the U.S.
government (for example CIA or DEA) doing the same things "the
Hannover Hackers" did it seems quite equal to me than working for the
corresponding Soviet agencies.  No matter what you get paid with -
drugs, money, whatever.  I don't see a moral distinction.

>After all, in the United
>States, one normally can get better access to money and drugs by working
>for someone *other* than the U.S. government.

I don't think there's such a clear distinction nowadays in the era of
civil forfeitures where people working as informers (and perhaps also
police officers?) get part of the loot.  Or do you disagree, Mike?

//Jyrki
Newsgroups: comp.org.eff.talk
From: jkp@cs.HUT.FI (Jyrki Kuoppala)
Subject: Re: IRC discussion of security and cyberspace
Keywords: Security, Cyberspace, Hackers, Networks
Reply-To: jkp@cs.HUT.FI (Jyrki Kuoppala)
Organization: Helsinki University of Technology, Finland
Date: Tue, 6 Oct 1992 22:52:51 GMT

In article <39251@unix.SRI.COM>, mandel@unix (Thomas F. Mandel) writes:
>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.

What's that in GMT (date -u in Unix)?  And what is the name of the channel?

//Jyrki
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: Mon, 5 Oct 1992 03:47:12 GMT

In article <1992Oct5.015808.8832@nntp.hut.fi> jkp@cs.HUT.FI (Jyrki Kuoppala) writes:

>Brad Hicks writes well, and writes most of the answers to this stuff I
>would give if I would answer them.  I didn't read his articles closely
>enough to be able to agree completely and probably would disagree on
>some points, but I agree with him on roughly all the points he makes on
>the issue.

I agree that Brad Hicks's and your appraisals of the facts in the Cuckoo's
Egg case are roughly equivalent.

Hicks's fantasy is that the Hannover Hackers were actually heroes who set
out to challenge American policy with regard to the placement and use of
strategic nuclear weapons. There are, however, no facts in the record of
the case to support this fantasy.

In contrast, there were plenty of facts suggesting that the Hannover
Hackers were motivated by the desire to get money and drugs. They even
cheated their handlers at one point by getting paid for software they
"stole" that the Eastern Bloc could have gotten more cheaply through
legitimate means.

Those who equate the Hannover Hackers with "working for the U.S.
government" have no real moral calculus, IMHO. Lots of people work for the
U.S. government, but I wouldn't say a mail carrier's work was the moral
equivalent of hacking into another country's computers.

It should be noted that Hicks has shown a willingness to misrepresent the
facts (as when he said that no one remembered what American strategic
nuclear policy was) and to backpedal ferociously (as when he discovered
that Cliff Stoll was reading this newsgroup, and tried to disavow all his
comments about Cliff and tried to suck up to Cliff in e-mail).

>>This is the first you've mentioned about venal government informers.
>
>This was in answer to your comment about relative pay.

I don't recall making a comment about relative pay in response to anything
you wrote. 


--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
Newsgroups: comp.org.eff.talk,misc.int-property,alt.suit.att-bsdi,comp.unix.bsd