HDTenEightyP/NetNews huggingface dataset:
Newsgroups: comp.org.eff.talk
Subject: Re: Commercialization of the Nets?
From: Steve.Withers@bbs.actrix.gen.nz
Date: Fri, 9 Oct 1992 11:47:31 GMT
Organization: Actrix Information Exchange

In article <CKD.92Oct8001819@loiosh.eff.org> ckd@eff.org (Christopher Davis) writes:
> [followups twiddled.  this probably belongs on com-priv@lists.psi.com]
> Robert> == Robert B. Reinhardt <breinhar@access.digex.com> 
> 
>  Robert> This is probably going to become an even more expensive hobby
>  Robert> than it really is, and/or we'll all startup our own private and
>  Robert> commercial nets and set up a constantly fluxing matrix of who's
>  Robert> charging who for what access.
> 
> You're a bit slow on this one.  digex is connected to Alternet, one of
> the *already existing* commercial IP connectivity providers.  Of course
> it's so transparent you didn't notice...

I read in the last few days - I think on ClariNet (or was it in Boardwatch?)
that the NSFNet has had its charter liberalised so that it is now worded in
such a loose way that the Board will now have much greater discretion as far
as what is suitable for transporting over their backbone. Instead of
commercial stuff being prohibited, they now only have to provide a network
with the primary objective of facilitating research and the like. They can do
what they like with any extra capacity.......at least this seems to be the
conclusion to be drawn......
 

 
-- 
Steve Withers - Wellington, New Zealand | On Sept. 19th, 88% of NZ voters opted
Steve.Withers@bbs.actrix.gen.nz         | for proportional representation. It
withers_s@kosmos.wcc.govt.nz            | looks like we may get a more  
**** Happy user of OS/2 v2!! ****       | democratic system "real soon now".
Xref: sparky comp.org.eff.talk:6434 misc.int-property:1190 alt.suit.att-bsdi:502 comp.unix.bsd:7393
From: tzs@stein.u.washington.edu (Tim Smith)
Newsgroups: comp.org.eff.talk,misc.int-property,alt.suit.att-bsdi,comp.unix.bsd
Subject: Re: Patents:  What they are.  What they aren't.  Other factors.
Date: 14 Oct 92 03:35:23 GMT
Article-I.D.: u.1992Oct14.033523.13036
Organization: University of Washington, Seattle

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

If Pike's backing store is what I'm guessing (storing off-screen images of
the parts of windows that are obscured by other windows), then if it's so
obvious, how come Apple, Commodore, Microsoft, and many others overlooked
this technique?  The 128K Mac was rather pressed for memory -- I would have
expected them to come up with any "obvious" methods to save RAM.

--Tim Smith
Newsgroups: comp.org.eff.talk,comp.admin.policy,alt.censorship,alt.comp.acad-freedom.talk,alt.society.civil-liberty
From: tt@tarzan.jyu.fi (Tapani Tarvainen)
Subject: Re: Supreme Court and U.S. Constitution (was Re: Banned Computer Material 1992)
Originator: tt@tarzan.math.jyu.fi
Organization: University of Jyvaskyla
	<1992Oct6.175025.4096@mtu.edu> <1992Oct7.153350.19159@newstand.syr.edu>
Date: Mon, 12 Oct 1992 09:34:20 GMT

In article <1992Oct7.153350.19159@newstand.syr.edu> greeny@top.cis.syr.edu (J. S. Greenfield) writes:

>Likewise, to the vast majority of the world, an unqualified remark about the
>meaning of the US Constitution will suggest that the interpretation of the SC
>is being discussed.

I rather suspect the vast majority believes words in general and
(to Americans) those of the Constitution in particular have
one true, absolute meaning and very the notion of interpretation
never enters their minds.

--
Tapani Tarvainen  (tt@math.jyu.fi, tarvaine@jyu.fi, tarvainen@finjyu.bitnet)
Newsgroups: comp.org.eff.talk
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 20:02:22 GMT
Article-I.D.: puddle.9053.2ADE14F5
Organization: FidoNet node 1:104/93 - Adelante, Boulder CO


 TS> If Pike's backing store is what I'm guessing (storing off-screen images of
 TS> the parts of windows that are obscured by other windows), then if it's so
 TS> obvious, how come Apple, Commodore, Microsoft, and many others overlooked
 TS> this technique?  The 128K Mac was rather pressed for 
 TS> memory -- I would have expected them to come up with any "obvious" 
 TS> methods to save RAM.

As I understand the situation, you have it backwards.  Saving parts of a window raster image, as opposed to requiring that it be redrawn, takes lots of RAM. It is a tradeoff of more RAM usage for more speed.  The MIT people who first made use of this technique did not believe they were the first to think of it,only that their Lisp machines were among the first to have enough RAM to make this obvious technique feasible.

Absent any patent protection, such a technique would be expected to show up frequently only after "enough RAM to burn" became commonplace.  (Of course,how much RAM this is varies with time, as graphic screen images keep growing in size; also consider that some machines have a bottleneck between video ram and main memory, making the technique less useful).  Hope this helps you to interpret the story.
   ~z~


--  
uucp: uunet!m2xenix!puddle!104!93!Zhahai.Stewart
Internet: Zhahai.Stewart@f93.n104.z1.fidonet.org
Newsgroups: comp.org.eff.talk,comp.admin.policy,alt.censorship,alt.comp.acad-freedom.talk,alt.society.civil-liberty,alt.politics.usa.constitution
From: pfarrell@gmuvax2.gmu.edu (Pat Farrell)
Subject: FBI, Laws, PGP, etc.
Keywords: privacy, FBI, encryption, PGP
Organization: George Mason University, Fairfax, Virginia, USA 
Date: Mon, 12 Oct 1992 02:30:35 GMT

Hi!

I'm a bit confused. I see all kinds of postings about the
(thankfully dead) FBI wiretap bill on the c.o.eff.talk feed,
but very little about pgp20, while can provide "privacy for
the masses". 

How come? is this an all talk, no action feed?

I'll be at next week's National Computer Security Conference,
with my copy of PGP and my public keys. Seems we can start a
grass roots movement to use encryption without confusing the
hopeless lawyers in DC.

If you have a copy of PGP version 2.0. Please meet me at NCSC.
IF not, please get a copy. Here is a current archie
listing....

Pat


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

----------------------------------------------------
From archie-error@dorm.rutgers.edu Sun Oct 11 22:13:25 1992
Date: Sun, 11 Oct 92 22:15:37 EDT
Message-Id: <9210120215.AA27670@dorm.rutgers.edu>
From: archie@dorm.rutgers.edu
Subject: archie reply: prog pgp20.zip  


Sorting by hostname


Search request for 'pgp20.zip'


Host dartvax.dartmouth.edu   (129.170.16.4)
Last updated 14:45 28 Sep 1992

    Location: /pub/dropoff
      FILE      rw-r-----    177867  Sep  4 20:25   pgp20.zip

Host ftp.uni-kl.de   (131.246.9.95)
Last updated 12:24  6 Oct 1992

    Location: /pub/atari/incoming
      FILE      rw-r--r--    177867  Sep 16 12:15   pgp20.zip

Host ghost.dsi.unimi.it   (149.132.2.1)
Last updated 02:25 11 Sep 1992

    Location: /pub/crypt
      FILE      rw-r--r--    177867  Sep  5 10:28   pgp20.zip

Host nic.funet.fi   (128.214.6.100)
Last updated 05:03  1 Oct 1992

    Location: /pub/netinfo/FUNET/security/misc/crypt
      FILE      rw-r--r--    177867  Sep  9 22:31   pgp20.zip
    Location: /pub/unix/security/crypt
      FILE      rw-r--r--    177867  Sep  9 22:31   pgp20.zip
    Location: /pub/doc/FUNET/security/misc/crypt
      FILE      rw-r--r--    177867  Sep  9 22:31   pgp20.zip
    Location: /pub/doc/netinfo/FUNET/security/misc/crypt
      FILE      rw-r--r--    177867  Sep  9 22:31   pgp20.zip

Host samba.acs.unc.edu   (128.109.157.30)
Last updated 02:48 21 Sep 1992

    Location: /pub/wuarchive/pub/MSDOS_UPLOADS
      FILE      r--r--r--    177867  Sep  7 19:26   pgp20.zip

Host tupac-amaru.informatik.rwth-aachen.de   (137.226.112.31)
Last updated 02:10  6 Oct 1992

    Location: /pub/rz.archiv/simtel/msdos/MSDOS_UPLOADS
      FILE      rw-r--r--    177867  Sep 14 19:55   pgp20.zip

Host van-bc.wimsey.bc.ca   (192.48.234.1)
Last updated 20:34 30 Sep 1992

    Location: /pub/crypto/PGP-2.0
      FILE      rw-r--r--    177867  Sep  7 17:47   pgp20.zip

Host wuarchive.wustl.edu   (128.252.135.4)
Last updated 22:53 30 Sep 1992

    Location: /pub/MSDOS_UPLOADS
      FILE      r--r--r--    177867  Sep  7 18:26   pgp20.zip
From: scottw@src4src.linet.org (Scott Weintraub)
Newsgroups: comp.org.eff.talk
Subject: Re: Things
Date: 16 Oct 92 22:00:48 GMT
Organization: The Source for Source Pub Access Unix

In article <1992Oct13.192231.4691@tic.com> erikb@tic.com (Chris Goggans) writes:
>You know, how many of you people have talked to any of the people
>you like to talk about and make comparisons about?
>
>I have known just about everyone who tends to make the news in
>the "underground" and it really chaps my ass when people 
>just up and spout off about people they have never even TYPED AT!
>
>What prompted this little outburst was several posts back
>that alluded to the lack of moral fiber of a person known
>as Pengo.  Until you have talked to a person, don't judge him or her.
>
>If everyone only believes what they read on here, then my faith in
>all of you is lost.  Almost nothing you read is true.  (But don't believe
>me when I say that.  :)  )
>
>->ME

I think you can judge somebody to a certain extent based on their actions.
I can tell you right now that Ted Bundy is a bastard and I've never spoken
with the man.  It's word of mouth that tends to twist one person's opinion
of another and yes, you shouldn't always believe what you read.

-- 
     /// A3000-25/52       * Scott Weintraub - Long Island, NY     *   In
    ///  DCTV (yeah!)      * e-mail: scottw@src4src.linet.org      *DreAms i
\\\///   HP Paintjet (yuck)*                                       *  WalK
 \\X/    USR Courier HST   * Letterman is the king of latenight!!! *WiTh yOu
Xref: sparky comp.org.eff.talk:6378 misc.int-property:1161 alt.suit.att-bsdi:472 comp.unix.bsd:7217
From: mcgregor@netcom.com (Scott Mcgregor)
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: 11 Oct 92 02:49:34 GMT
Distribution: usa
Organization: Netcom - Online Communication Services (408 241-9760 guest)

In article <1b4lbbINN2i2@early-bird.think.com> barmar@think.com (Barry Margolin) writes:

>These are silly strawman arguments, since LZW can't be used to encrypt
>because you don't need a key to reverse the process of LZW (although I
>suppose a variant of LZW that used an initial dictionary derived from a key
>might be usable for encryption, although I suspect it would be pretty
>weak), and RSA can't be used to compress because it doesn't generate a
>smaller output than its input.

One could propose that LZW files are a form of encription because they
aren't clear test.  I will agree that there may be more secure
methods.  But I don't pretend to know that someone could apply the LZW
algorithm in a context other than compression and that's what I am
saying. Similalry, factoring large numbers and back door functions is
at the heart of RSA--I don't believe that the courts would restrict
an algorithm for multiplying or factoring large primess for purposes
other than encryption.

>I guess the problem I have with trying to distinguish the application from
>the algorithm is that I don't know what defines an "application".  Is data
>transformation in and of itself, regardless of the form, medium, or use of
>the information, an application?  Or does it have to be associated with
>something more specific, such as communication over phone lines, storage on
>magnetic media, etc.?

In my opinion it has to be the latter, or a combination of such
results which are specifically claimed. This is why I don't think
"mathematical algorithm" patents have been granted, and wouldn't be
upheld.  I think it is just over-reading into it to think that patents
like LZW or RSA do apply in that way.  But it would be fair to say
that they do apply broadly within the specific areas of compression
and encryption of transmitted signals and stored media.


-- 

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
Xref: sparky comp.org.eff.talk:6407 mi.misc:680
From: emv@msen.com (Edward Vielmetti)
Newsgroups: comp.org.eff.talk,mi.misc
Subject: Re: Finding The Hacker Crackdown
Date: 12 Oct 1992 19:26:43 -0400
Organization: Msen, Inc. -- Ann Arbor, Michigan
Distribution: inet
NNTP-Posting-Host: nigel.msen.com
X-Newsreader: TIN [version 1.1 PL6]

sean@cobra.dra.com wrote:
: Finding _The Hacker Crackdown_.
: 
: The bookstores certainly seem confused about where to put this one.  I
: checked the Library of Congress's records and got the ISBN, correct spelling
: of the author's name and the title of the book.  Normally that's enough
: to find any current book.

Border's Bookstore, Ann Arbor, MI, it's in the New Releases section on the
right hand side.  The easiest way to spot it is by the garish bright
yellow and orange spine, or by the orange banner over the front cover
showing a shadowy pointilist rendering of a hacker (I guess)

  Edward Vielmetti, vice president for research, Msen Inc. emv@Msen.com
        Msen Inc., 628 Brooks, Ann Arbor MI  48103 +1 313 998 4562


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: Sun, 11 Oct 1992 04:44:14 GMT

In article <11828.Oct1103.34.4392@virtualnews.nyu.edu> brnstnd@nyu.edu (D. J. Bernstein) writes:

>Okay, that's the entire process you've described. It hasn't come up with
>anything. Do you insist that Foo and Bar are not equivalent?

I claim the test of whether an alleged infringement does indeed
infringe is only whether it takes the same inputs, generates the same
outputs, and can be observed to perform the same steps explicit in the
claim. Other steps not explicit in the claim don't matter. If a step
can't be observed it can't be the distinguishing difference allowed in
a claim.
-- 

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
From: mnemonic@eff.org (Mike Godwin)
Subject: Re: EFFector Online 3.06: Bruce Sterling
Originator: mnemonic@eff.org
Organization: Electronic Frontier Foundation
Date: Wed, 7 Oct 1992 12:29:07 GMT

In article <1992Oct6.224552.27572@nntp.hut.fi> jkp@cs.HUT.FI (Jyrki Kuoppala) writes:
>In article <1992Oct5.202344.29486@eff.org>, mnemonic@eff (Mike Godwin) writes:
>
>>Well, look, Jyrki, it would be far more hypocritical of me to use
>>euphemisms, wouldn't it? Brad Hicks's theory is a fantasy in the truest
>>sense of the word. It's something he made up in order to comfort himself
>>in his views, and it has no correspondence with the real world.
>
>How do you know his motivation?  Are you proficient in mindreading or
>something?

You never question his statements about what *I* am thinking, Jyrki. Once
again you apply a different standard to me.

>Have you ever bought drugs (legal or illegal) with your paycheck?

What connection does this have with the issue I raised? I think there may
be a language barrier here. 

I should stress: I have bought alcohol (for example) with money I worked
for, but it would be false to say that I took that work in order to buy
alcohol.

>Have you ever done anything illegal in your work - ie. say you are
>driving to some place where you will work and get caught speeding?  If
>yes, you committed crimes and sought to be paid for these crimes in
>drugs or in money with which to buy drugs.
>
>In neither case do I see it very relevant to the "altruisticness"
>(whatever that is) of the acts.

I think you simply don't understand the point I was making. In the
examples you give, the law-breaking was incidental to the work. In Pengo's
case, the law-breaking was central to the work.

>OK, if Brad Hicks made such comments I probably just ignored them or
>took them to be "poetic license". 

Ah, but you don't grant *my postings* the same license. You're applying
different standards.

>I didn't read Brad Hicks's postings attacking Cliff Stoll as a person,
>but the _idea_ of the astronomer "defending his country" stereotype
>(or whatever, it's hard to put in short words) in the _book_ Stoll
>wrote.

Then you are almost alone in how you read Hicks's comments on Cliff's
sanity and moral character.

>>Perhaps you apply a different standard to me than you do to
>>Brad Hicks? If so, what does this say about your fairness?
>
>You tell me.

I've done so.



--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
From: sbarber@panix.com (Steve Barber)
Newsgroups: comp.org.eff.talk
Subject: Re: Patents: What they a
Date: 15 Oct 92 14:04:56 GMT
Organization: PANIX Public Access Unix, NYC
Bcc: sbarber


Anyway, your attorney is correct and the poster (brnstd?) misstates
the law.  An algorithm is not patentable subject matter.  See Gottschalk
v. Benson, a 1972 U.S. Supreme Court decision.

An invention whose claims recite patentable subject matter as a process
is not invalid, however, merely because one or more of the steps of
the process is an algorithm.  See Corazonix v. Arrhythmia, a 1992 case
in the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Second Circuit and Diamond v. Diehr,
a 1981 U.S. Supreme Court case.

Such an invention must contain "significant post-solution activity" in
order to be patentable.

OK, that's the law.  What does it mean?  It means that a pure algorithm is
not patentable.  However, the kinds of physical processes that have
traditionally been patentable (such as ruber curing processes and pacemakers in
the cases cited above) are patentable even if the only novel thing about
them is the use of an algorithm not previously applied in that field.

The post-solution activity requirement means that the invention must do
something with the results of the algorithm.  In the rubber curing patent,
what it did was to open the lid of the rubber mold after the algorithm
calculated how long to keep it closed.

That's why your attorney said that it would be easier to get a patent if
you turned your algorithm into a hardware device.  And you were correct
in saying that this would not necessarily mean that a software
reimplementation would infringe the hardware patent.

But don't get your knickers in a twist trying to justify these rules
analytically.  The courts are essentially making an economic compromise,
recognizing that sometimes the innovation is in the algorithm and sometimes
the innovation is in seeing an algorithm in a new light and applying to
a new field of endeavor.  But they won't give patents to algorithms that
aren't linked up to a physical context.  So if you are clever enough to
design a new alogorithm, you can get a separate patent for each application
of that algorithm.  I know, I know, potentially infinite.  But, you see,
now you are forced to invest in each application, thus furthering the
useful arts and satisfying the constitutionally stated purpose of patents.

Sometimes these courts are cleverer than we -- or they -- think they are.

-Steve Barber (Cardozo Law School, 3L)

-- 
Steve Barber                                             sbarber@panix.com
"The direct deed is the most meaningful reflection." - Bill Evans
Nothing I say is legal advice.  It can't be.  I don't know anything.
Newsgroups: comp.org.eff.talk
From: betsys@cs.umb.edu (Elizabeth Schwartz)
Newsgroups: comp.org.eff.talk
Subject: Re: Commercialization of the Nets?
Date: 9 Oct 92 15:45:38 GMT
	<CKD.92Oct8001819@loiosh.eff.org> <1992Oct9.114731.22272@actrix.gen.nz>
Organization: University of Massachusetts at Boston

I'd be very eager to see a copy of the new NSFnet charter. Can someone
please point me towards a copy? (News or ftp would be best)
  thanks, Betsy
--
System Administrator                  Internet: betsys@cs.umb.edu
MACS Dept, UMass/Boston               BITNET:ESCHWARTZ%UMBSKY.DNET@NS.UMB.EDU
100 Morrissy Blvd                     Staccato signals
Boston, MA 02125-3393                      of constant information....
Newsgroups: comp.org.eff.talk,misc.int-property,alt.suit.att-bsdi,comp.unix.bsd
From: andy@research.canon.oz.au (Andy Newman)
Subject: Re: Patents:  What they are.  What they aren't.  Other factors.
Organization: Canon Information Systems Research Australia
Date: Fri, 16 Oct 1992 00:57:48 GMT

tzs@stein.u.washington.edu (Tim Smith) writes:
>peter@ferranti.com (peter da silva) writes:
>>They haven't just harmed individuals. For example, the Pike patent prevents
>>people from building a window system that uses backing store in a certain
>>way -- which happens to be the obvious and most effective way. This harms
>>everyone who uses a computer system running a window system, since it forces
>>them to use about twice as much RAM or a much faster CPU.
>
>If Pike's backing store is what I'm guessing (storing off-screen images of
>the parts of windows that are obscured by other windows), then if it's so
>obvious, how come Apple, Commodore, Microsoft, and many others overlooked
>this technique?  The 128K Mac was rather pressed for memory -- I would have
>expected them to come up with any "obvious" methods to save RAM.
>
>--Tim Smith


Pike's method stores only the occluded areas in off-screen memory. His
rendering code can traverse a list of rectangular "framebuffer" areas
when putting pixel values into memory. Apple did indeed overlook his
technique, they used a method that doesn't use any memory to save
occluded memory by forcing the program to redraw "damaged" areas.
Commodore, in the Amiga, DO use Pikes technique, they even use the
same names for the basic data structures (the Amiga's window system
can also do Mac-style forced redraw to save more memory). I don't know
what Microsoft do in Windows.

The aim of backing store is to hide the details of any windowing from
the user program. The program just thinks its got a graphics display
of X by Y and draws into it. It doesn't have to care about areas of
windows that are obscured by other windows. Pike's method does this
memory efficiently. Other systems, notably X11, an entire copy of the
window in off-screen memory rather than just the obscured areas.
-- 
Andy Newman (andy@research.canon.oz.au)
"Giving money and power to governments is like giving whiskey and
 car keys to teenage boys" - P.J.O'Rourke
Newsgroups: comp.org.eff.talk
From: mnemonic@eff.org (Mike Godwin)
Subject: Re: Re- EFFector Online 3.06- B
Originator: mnemonic@eff.org
Organization: Electronic Frontier Foundation
Date: Thu, 8 Oct 1992 06:44:00 GMT

In article <1992Oct7.231100.9524@nntp.hut.fi> jkp@cs.HUT.FI (Jyrki Kuoppala) writes:
>>
>>We know something about Pengo's motivations. See CYBERPUNK, by Hafner and
>>Markoff.
>
>I have not read the book and have no easy access to it.  Perhaps you
>could quote some to support your assertions.

I think it would be a more efficient use of both your time and mine if you
found a copy and read it and drew your own conclusions as to the validity
of Brad Hicks's theory of the Hannover Hackers as moral heroes.


--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,comp.admin.policy,alt.censorship,alt.comp.acad-freedom.talk,alt.society.civil-liberty,alt.politics.usa.constitution