HDTenEightyP/NetNews huggingface dataset:
From: berryh@huey.udel.edu (John Berryhill, Ph.D.)
Subject: Re: Patents: What they are. What they aren't. Other factors.
Organization: little scraps of paper, mostly
Distribution: usa
Date: Sun, 8 Nov 1992 07:05:10 GMT

In article <BxA4K4.3qM@NeoSoft.com> gclarkii@NeoSoft.com (Gary Clark II) writes:

>to PKE?  Also what type of publishing is classified as prior art?  Does
>fiction count?

In order to qualify as prior art, the publication must show the invention
including every limitation of at least one of the claims.  A publication
may be combined with another publication in order to show that at least
one of the claims would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in
the art to which the invention most closely pertains.

The publication must be a printed description that is publicly
accessible.  There is case law which has established that an academic
thesis, in Russian, in a university library, in the Soviet Union was
a publicly accessible document inasmuch as it was properly indexed
in the card catalog according to the name of the author.

I have been told that if it is known in a particular art that there
is a guru, on an icy mountaintop in Tibet, accessible only by scaling
a mile-high wall of ice, and the guru has a stone tablet on which there
is a disclosure of an invention, written in a language that only he can
read, and that if you go to Tibet, climb the mountain, and pay the guru
the sum of five million dollars for him to read the tablets -- then
that would probably be held to be available as prior art.

On the other hand, if a detailed description of the invention was
taught orally and memorized by every schoolchild in Canada for the
last 100 years, and it has been common in Canada for every person
to discuss the invention with every person they meet every day, and
if they stand together along the entire border shouting about the
invention, but they never wrote or recorded a single word -- then
that would probably not be available as prior art.

Simple, no?
-- 
                                                John Berryhill, Ph.D.
Newsgroups: comp.org.eff.talk,misc.int-property,alt.suit.att-bsdi,comp.unix.bsd
From: peter@ferranti.com (peter da silva)
Subject: Re: Interface monopolies
Organization: Xenix Support, FICC
Date: Thu, 5 Nov 1992 00:14:40 GMT

In article <R0ZPTB3w165w@netlink.cts.com> jim@netlink.cts.com (Jim Bowery) writes:
> legislation can clarify such things IF the congressmen receive good
> guidance.  What I'm saying is that if you don't have a design patent on
> your interface, you should have no standing to defend it.

You know, this is probably the most sensible comment I've seen come out of
this discussion. I don't, however, see how this can be helped: in other
fields (commercial art, for example) styling and format *have* been
protected by copyright for a long time. A classic case is the typical
copyright on greeting cards and lines of greeting cards. Similar designs,
even under quite broad definitions of similarity, have been found to
violate copyrights. Similarly, there is a copyright that has been defended
successfuly that seems to pretty much cover any use of the word "ILLINOIS",
with a map of the state nestled into the first "L", in a corporate logo.
-- 
% Peter da Silva % 77487-5012 % +1 713 274 5180 % Har du kramat din varg idag?
(<<VV$@\\$'&O 9$O%'$LT$&$"V6"$&$<4$?'&$ #I&&?$=$444@)24 24 scale newpath/P true
def 3 21 moveto{dup 36 eq{pop/P P not def}{dup 7 and 4 sub exch 56 and 8 div 4
sub P{rlineto}{rmoveto}ifelse}ifelse}forall stroke showpage %          `-_-'
Newsgroups: comp.org.eff.talk,misc.int-property,alt.suit.att-bsdi,comp.unix.bsd
From: gclarkii@NeoSoft.com (Gary Clark II)
Subject: Re: Patents: What they are. What they aren't. Other factors.
Organization: NeoSoft Communications Services -- (713) 684-5900
Distribution: usa
Date: Fri, 6 Nov 1992 05:28:50 GMT


I only have one question, what year did RSA apply for the patent applying(sic)
to PKE?  Also what type of publishing is classified as prior art?  Does
fiction count?

Gary Clark II **N5VMF**
gclarkii@tghost.gbdata.com
gclarkii@sugar.neosoft.com
From: plummer@cs.swarthmore.edu (David Barker-Plummer)
Newsgroups: comp.org.eff.talk
Subject: A Modest Proposal
Date: 12 Nov 92 20:26:03 GMT
Distribution: comp
Organization: Swarthmore College, Swarthmore, PA

I have been wondering if anyone out there in cyberspace has knowledge
of any databases of information on corporations and organizations.

My ideal would be for a random person to be able to request a random
corporation's file from the database, and find in it information about
whether the corporation (or its CEO) gives money to political parties,
and if so which ones, whether the corporation has political positions
either explicit or implicit, and so on.  One might choose, for
example, to boycott corporations which donate money to the Republican
(or Democratic) party, invest in South Africa, support anti-abortion
rights organizations and so on.  Right now it is significantly
difficult to get this information, as it would be for corporations to
get informations about our credit ratings were it not for TRW et al.

I think that it would be good to have a database of such information
which would enable consumers to make better informed choices about the
companies with which we do business.  This may result in more socially
responsible corporations in the long run.  My intention is to subvert
the dominant use of computer databases to record information about
*us*, to instead record information about those corporations.

I am sure that this is not a new idea, and I would like to hear of
efforts along these lines.
From: Brian.Lane@p0.f162.n138.z1.fidonet.org (Brian Lane)
Newsgroups: comp.org.eff.talk
Subject: Privacy
Date: Fri, 06 Nov 92 12:04:32 PDT
Organization: FidoNet node 1:138/162.0 - Callahan's Place, Ashford WA

  I just remembered a project by Steve Ciarcia a while back in Byte magazine.  He had a device you could add to your modem(RS232 serial port) that had an implementation of the DES algorithm built in.  While online you could turn the encryption on/off, etc.  It seems to me that something like this (implemented either in software or hardware) would be the best way to go to ensure the privacy of your communications, and noone would be any wiser.

    -Brian


--  
uucp: uunet!m2xenix!puddle!138!162.0!Brian.Lane
Internet: Brian.Lane@p0.f162.n138.z1.fidonet.org
From: esm@Auspex.COM (Ed Santiago)
Newsgroups: comp.org.eff.talk
Subject: Re: Privacy problem, "list all people with little data"
Date: 9 Nov 92 21:40:31 GMT
Organization: Auspex Systems, Santa Clara


This is something I've thought about a bit.

There probably isn't anything we can do to convince The Masses to be
more privacy-conscious, and legislation goes against all my beliefs.

What I've wound up doing is feeding them... sort of.  I lie.  I use
several variations on my name.  When there's an offensive blank in a
form, I fill it in with lies ("Occupation:  __gardener__").  Trying to
be invisible will only highlight my existence, but by inundating the
databases with snippets of my existence I hope to vanish amid the bullshit.

Will it work?  I don't know.  Probably not, but I think it's worth a shot.

The biggest problem with this is, I won't lie about my SSAN.  That
might get other people into trouble.  So I always leave it blank, 
which brings us back to Brad's original question.

The long-term solution really is educating people, but there's not
much hope for that in this country.  Fortunately, the U.S. isn't the
only game in town...
-- 
Ed Santiago, Software Type				esm@Auspex.com
Auspex Systems, Inc.    Santa Clara, CA, USA
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: 10 Nov 92 01:29:26 GMT
Article-I.D.: puddle.18088.2B009BF4
Organization: FidoNet node 1:104/93 - Adelante, Boulder CO


 >If you are saying that there is a difference between patentening a
 >concept and patentening the use of the concept, then I will regard you
 >as making sophomoric statements and no longer respond. 

 SM> Perhaps that is for the best, if Hennessy doesn't see the difference
 SM> between thinking about a thing and doing a thing, and considers it
 SM> more plain english to treat them as equivalent rather than distinct.

 OK, so patents don't prohibit thinking about something, just using it.
 Hooray.  Whoopee.  I think most everybody can understand that.  

 Encrytion laws wouldn't prohibit thinking about encryption.  Copyrights
 don't prohibit thinking about copyrighted material, nor even thinking
 about copying it.  For that matter, murder laws don't prohibit thinking
 about murder.

 I believe the difficulty in communication may derive not from Hennessy
 misaprehending the distintion between thinking and doing, but from your
 not yet quite catching that some folks consider this a silly distinction
 *in terms of intellectual property law*.  That is, none of the 
 intellectual property laws prohibiting thinking about something (or 
 reserve to some "owner" all rights to think about something).  That isn't
 an issue.  Using something is the only issue.  So your making a big deal
 about the distinction isn't seen as meaningful, insightful, nor helpful
 in clarifying issues, at least to some people.

 Would it be possible for all of us to concede that patents don't prohibit
 thinking about something, and then get on with the real issues?
     ~z~


--  
uucp: uunet!m2xenix!puddle!104!93!Zhahai.Stewart
Internet: Zhahai.Stewart@f93.n104.z1.fidonet.org
From: Zhahai.Stewart@f93.n104.z1.fidonet.org (Zhahai Stewart)
Newsgroups: comp.org.eff.talk
Subject: Key Registration; authentication vs encryption
Date: 10 Nov 92 19:34:00 GMT
Article-I.D.: puddle.18684.2B02FE98
Organization: FidoNet node 1:104/93 - Adelante, Boulder CO


 Even if I disagree on whether the tradeoff in privacy is worth it, I
 can see the point of those, like Denning, who are seeking a compromise
 which could allow law enforcement to acquire private keys under court
 order, by analogy with wiretapping.

 This however also leaves open a second question which hasn't yet been 
 discussed here.  Some public key systems (including RSA) also provide
 message authentication.  Anyone who has your private key, in such
 schemes, can in effect create an undetectable forgery of your "legal 
 signature".  Given past "dirty tricks" campaigns (by the FBI and 
 others), this could be a mighty temptation.  It could be used for
 harassment (creating personal friction or financial ruin), or even
 to create irrefutable yet bogus "evidence", if the key was compromised 
 to parties who were not officially in posession of it.

 The question: does *anyone* here, Ms. Denning included, see any solid
 justification for allowing the government to engage in such forgery,
 or "spoofing"?  Is there any legitimate need for this, within law
 enforcement?

 If not, then I would expect the "key registry" proposals to include the
 concept of using dual key pairs: one which is used for encryption, and
 whose secret key could be revealed by court order, and one which is used
 for authentication, with no registration required, and with no court 
 authority to compel release of the secret half.

 I still believe that key registration is a bad idea, and must be opposed.
 But I hope that such proposals will nevertheless continue to be debated,
 and refined, so as to focus the attention on the real issues.
     ~z~


--  
uucp: uunet!m2xenix!puddle!104!93!Zhahai.Stewart
Internet: Zhahai.Stewart@f93.n104.z1.fidonet.org
Newsgroups: comp.org.eff.talk
From: cb@wixer.cactus.org (Cyberspace Buddha)
Subject: Re: right to have .plan
Organization: Real/Time Communications
Distribution: usa
Date: Tue, 10 Nov 92 03:58:21 GMT

moon@Virginia.EDU (M. Yi) writes:
>recently i recieve a complaint about my .plan file
>which contains quote from the book of isaiah.  one
>user in my system accuses, "[i was] protelyzing over
>system."  i consider this as a challege in my freedom
>of expressing my thought and freedom of religion.
>

A complaint about your .plan?  seems kinda far fetched to me.
were I a sysadmin and got such a complaint, I'd tell the plaintiff
to go whistle up a rope.  After all, how do you get to see a
persons .plan, anyway?  is there a way other than finger? If
not, I'd say that fingering someone and then whining about
the results is kinda begging the question...

cb
-- 
 Cyberspace Buddha { Why are you looking for more knowledge when you  } /(o\
cb@wixer.cactus.org } do not pay attention to what you already know? {  \o)/
 Is this thing on? { Just say no to war, Bush, NSA, CIA, IRS, etc...  } fnord
Newsgroups: comp.org.eff.talk,alt.privacy,talk.politics.guns
From: ken@eies2.njit.edu (Kenneth  Ng)
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: 7 Nov 92 19:40:11 GMT
Distribution: usa
Organization: NJIT - EIES2

In article<id.Y_QU.8J9@ferranti.com: peter@ferranti.com (peter da silva) writes:
:In article <1992Nov5.213554.2337@fcom.cc.utah.edu> terry@cs.weber.edu (A Wizard of Earth C) writes:
:> 	... why did we grow faster than other countries during
:> 	the late nineteenth and early twentieth centuries when our
:> 	universities were mediocre, and why is our productivity
:> 	lagging behind other nations now that our universities and
:> 	their scientific achievements lead the world?

Actually according to a recent article in the New York TImes Science Times,
the US still leads the world in productivity.  Recent as in the past 6
months.

-- 
Kenneth Ng
AT&T vs BSDI lawsuit: The Ethnic Cleansing of the computer world.
This signature is *NOT* the intellectual property of USL.
From: dgillmor@msen.com (Dan Gillmor)
Newsgroups: comp.org.eff.talk
Subject: Re: Privacy problem, "list all people with little data"
Date: 11 Nov 1992 23:55:44 GMT
Organization: Detroit Free Press
Distribution: inet
NNTP-Posting-Host: heifetz.msen.com
X-Newsreader: TIN [version 1.1 PL6]

Budget car rental now asks you to sign a form stating you have a good
driving record. They also demand your SSN. I refused and had a whale of an
argument with the manager of the local outlet. I finally asked him whether
he wanted to rent me the car or not, and noted that he had my home address
and a credit card number and any other ID he wanted -- just no SSN. He
said he'd rent just this one time but never again. Right.

--
Dan Gillmor                                      Internet: dgillmor@msen.com
Detroit Free Press                               CompuServe: 73240,334
321 W. Lafayette                                 Voice: 313-222-6659
Detroit, MI 48226                                Fax: 313-222-5981
Newsgroups: comp.org.eff.talk,alt.society.civil-liberty,alt.politics.usa.misc
From: jkp@cs.HUT.FI (Jyrki Kuoppala)
Subject: Computer information off-limits for U.S. prisoners
Reply-To: jkp@cs.HUT.FI (Jyrki Kuoppala)
Organization: Helsinki University of Technology, Finland
Date: Mon, 9 Nov 1992 23:27:43 GMT

Quoted from:

Computer underground Digest    Sun Nov 8, 1992   Volume 4 : Issue 56

(available from comp.scoiety.cu-digest)
------------------------------

Date: 05 Nov 92 18:19:30 EST
From: Gordon Meyer <72307.1502@COMPUSERVE.COM>
Subject: File 5--Computer Info off-limits to Federal Prisoners

COMPUTER INFORMATION OFF LIMITS FOR FEDERAL PRISONERS

WINDOWS magazine reports John D. Caulfield, Warden of the Federal
Prison Camp at Eglin Air Force Base in Florida, has forbidden the
distribution of their publication to prisoners in his facility.

The publication received a letter from Warden Caulfield after sending
an issue to an un-named inmate.  The complete letter is reprinted on
page 288 of the October 1992 issue.  The letter says in part...

   I have reviewed the publication entitled WINDOWS, the July
   1992 issue, that was mailed to, (NAME REMOVED), a resident of
   this facility, and have found the programming contents to be
   unacceptable for introduction into this facility.  Program
   Statement 1232.3 entitled "Personal Computers" S13, PG,
   states, "There will be no training in programming techniques,
   programming languages, or computer repair."

   Due to the information cited above, the July publication
   entitled WINDOWS is not suited for introduction into this
   facility.

No further explanation is given by the Warden.  One wonders why the
institution feels the need to censor this information.  It is true
that it is of limited usefulness while incarcerated, because the
inmate probably wouldn't have access to a computer to use, but if
anything this should _allow_ the distribution of technical
information, not inhibit it.  Publications are often censored because
of the disruption they might cause within the facility.  Clearly an
inmate attempting to learn C++ without access to a CPU is a threat to
no one.  CuD intends to contact the Warden for more information
regarding this bizarre rule and will report any additional information
in a future issue.

------------------------------
From: cme@ellisun.sw.stratus.com (Carl Ellison)
Newsgroups: comp.org.eff.talk
Subject: Re: Key registration
Date: 6 Nov 92 18:57:47 GMT
Organization: Stratus Computer, Software Engineering

In article <92311.001010MRAMPTON@auvm.american.edu> MRAMPTON@auvm.american.edu (Mike Rampton) writes:
>     It would seem that people using encryption must prove their innocence
>in the eyes of the law.  If you're using encryption, then you must have
>something to hide and if you have something to hide, then the government
>should know about it.  After all, the government does know what's best for
>us and the country.  They only have our best interests at heart.  ;^)


I grant that this is the way the country seems to be evolving, but there's
a countercurrent we should keep in mind.

The government, in various facets, is required to hold open sessions even
when it's embarrassing.  It's only (allegedly) for Nat'l Security (war
plans, etc.) that the Gov't is openly allowed to keep secrets from us.
After all, they're working for us.

The same does not apply to buisnesses or tupperware parties or beer bashes.
We are allowed to have private functions at will, without having to explain
that to anyone -- without having to get permission.  Our right to assemble
is not limited to public assemblies on a street corner with totally open
admission (therefore, admission of the local KGB (oops, FBI) agent).



Why does this same principle not apply to electronic meetings (video
conferences, phone calls, e-mail) and records of meetings?

Similarly, I believe there's a requirement that records not be destroyed
(Ollie North notwithstanding) by Gov't employees.  This would imply to me
that records not be hidden from posterity either...so, all encryption keys
would have to be made public, or at least archived for later publication
(where "made public" means released to the press).  However, this applies
to government employees.  I see no precident for applying it to private
citizens.

-- 
-- <<Disclaimer: All opinions expressed are my own, of course.>>
-- Carl Ellison						cme@sw.stratus.com
-- Stratus Computer Inc.	M3-2-BKW		TEL: (508)460-2783
-- 55 Fairbanks Boulevard ; Marlborough MA 01752-1298	FAX: (508)624-7488
From: tinsel@uiuc.edu (Thomas Aaron Insel)
Subject: Secret Service and 2600
Reply-To: tinsel@uiuc.edu
Organization: Masticating Illini
Date: Thu, 12 Nov 92 03:26:49 GMT

I'd like to call your attention to the following articles, all
in clari.mb.govt:

  Reports of "Raid" on 2600 Washington Meeting 11/09/92 
  Secret Service Role Questioned in "2600 Washington Raid" 11/10/92
  ****Conflicting Stories in 2600 Raid 11/11/92

Briefly, a regular 2600-sponsored meeting in Arlington was interrupted
by security and police officers, who searched the participants, 
confiscated various written materials, including CPSR applications, and 
threatened them with arrest.  The `raid' was apparently pre-planned, 
and may been on behalf of the U.S. Secret Service.  Craig Neidorf 
(of CPSR) was present and is quoted in the article.
--
Thomas Insel (tinsel@nyx.cs.du.edu, tinsel@uiuc.edu)
Newsgroups: comp.org.eff.talk,alt.privacy,sci.crypt
From: gardner@convex.com (Steve Gardner)
Subject: Re: New Developments on Digital Telephony
Date: Fri, 13 Nov 1992 18:32:29 GMT
Organization: Engineering, CONVEX Computer Corp., Richardson, Tx., USA
X-Disclaimer: This message was written by a user at CONVEX Computer
              Corp. The opinions expressed are those of the user and
              not necessarily those of CONVEX.

In article <1992Nov13.110529.1729@guvax.acc.georgetown.edu> denning@guvax.acc.georgetown.edu writes:
>Peter forwarded this to me this morning.  I thought you should
>know about it because of its likely implications for crypto 
>regulation.
	[ mildly amusing spoof of Clinton's jobs program deleted . . . ]

	You know, this is just the sort of thing that many humorless 
	sorts on the net will jump right on and take seriously.
	Next time, it might be a good idea to use smileys.


						smg

Xref: sparky comp.org.eff.talk:6777 misc.int-property:1385 alt.suit.att-bsdi:592 comp.unix.bsd:8450
From: peter@ferranti.com (peter da silva)
Subject: Re: Interface monopolies
Organization: Xenix Support, FICC
Date: Sun, 8 Nov 1992 02:47:50 GMT

In article <R0ZPTB3w165w@netlink.cts.com> jim@netlink.cts.com (Jim Bowery):
> guidance.  What I'm saying is that if you don't have a design patent on
> your interface, you should have no standing to defend it.

I responded that existing practice *outside* computer software says otherwise.

In article <JgqTTB1w165w@netlink.cts.com> jim@netlink.cts.com (Jim Bowery) writes:
> Design patents exist so that the utility of a form or formalism can be
> owned and defended.  Much that is copyrighted should be patented instead.

OK, but prior art (in another sense) says that this isn't the case. How do
we get there from here?
-- 
% Peter da Silva % 77487-5012 % +1 713 274 5180 %
true(<<VV$@\\$'&O 9$O%'$LT$&$"V6"$&$<4$?'&$ #I&&?$=$<<@)24 24 scale 3 21 moveto
{dup 36 eq{pop not}{dup 7 and 4 sub exch 56 and 8 div 4 sub 2 index{rlineto}{
rmoveto}ifelse}ifelse}forall stroke pop showpage % Har du kramat din varg idag?
Newsgroups: comp.org.eff.talk
From: Christopher Allen <consensus@aol.com>
Subject: Does EFF have Policy regarding PGP?
X-Useragent: Nuntius v1.1.1d12
Date: Wed, 11 Nov 1992 20:35:15 GMT
X-Xxdate: Wed, 11 Nov 92 12:25:05 GMT
X-Xxmessage-Id: <A726AC2163010309@kip-9.apple.com>
Organization: Consensus Development

PGP (Pretty Good Privacy) 2.0 is easily available for PC-DOS, Unix,
and has recently even become available for the Macintosh. It uses
the IDEA encryption algorithm along with a public-key hash to make
public key encryption available to all.

However, because of RSA patents and government restrictions, use of
PGP is controversial and could be considered "subversive" or even
illegal.

Worst case, I could see the faint possibility that RSA or 
the government could even crack down on individuals (or more 
likely companies) that post PGP public key's as evidence of patent
infringement. It probably would not hold up in court, but the
nuisance cost alone might make it prohibitive.

What is EFF's policy regarding PGP? Is it best to ignore it and
concentrate on making RSA more readily available?

In a related note, does anyone have any idea what Clinton/Gore's
policy might be regarding use of public key algorithms for
privacy?

| Christopher Allen                     America Online: Consensus |
| Consensus Development               Internet: consensus@aol.com |
| 3182 Campus Drive #501                      Tel: (415) 345-1060 |
| San Mateo, CA 94403-3123                    Fax: (415) 345-1714 |