HDTenEightyP/NetNews huggingface dataset:
From: rpw3@rigden.wpd.sgi.com (Rob Warnock)
Newsgroups: comp.patents
Subject: Re: Dictionary speller (US4783761) Claim Interperation
Date: 7 Apr 92 07:13:39 GMT
Organization: Silicon Graphics, Inc.  Mountain View, CA

mab@wdl39.wdl.loral.com (Mark A Biggar) writes:
+---------------
| >I have a specific case to ask about.  This week the LPF has been posting
| >messages about patent 4,783,761.  This covers a particular spelling check
| >technique for a word processor.
| 
| How are command completion systems like that built into emacs or tcsh
| excluding from infringing on this patent claim?
+---------------

Prior art. BBN TENEX (later incorporated into DEC's TOPS-20) was doing
command completion essentially identical to emacs or tcsh way back in the
early 1970's. I'm not saying TENEX was first, understand, just that it
predates patent 4,783,761 by more than a decade.

Besides, I don't think command completion infringes on this patent. Note
that Claim 2 subpart (g) says [and similarly Claims 8 (g) and 10 (e)]:

   "(g) signal output means connected to said first and second storage
    means for generating a signal immediately in response to a received
    character input being out of spelling order as structured in said first
    and second storage means and determined by said comparison means."

Command completion that I'm familiar with *doesn't* "generat[e] a signal
immediately in response to a received character input being out of spelling
order". You have to either ask for completion (e.g. <ESC>) or finish the
whole command and hit <CR> before you get an error. [That's because such
command parsers *expect* you to often type a "new word" they haven't ever
seen before.]


-Rob

-----
Rob Warnock, MS-9U/510		rpw3@sgi.com
Silicon Graphics, Inc.		(415)335-1673
2011 N. Shoreline Blvd.
Mountain View, CA  94039-7311
From: alopez-o@neumann.waterloo.edu (Alex Lopez-Ortiz)
Newsgroups: comp.patents
Subject: Re: Preemptive patenting - an alternate LPF strategy
Keywords: yet another strategy...
Date: 8 Apr 92 09:42:27 GMT
Organization: University of Waterloo

In article <4548@cluster.cs.su.oz.au>, uad1077@dircon.co.uk (Ian Kemmish) writes:
> is2!alg@uunet.uu.net (Al Guintu) writes:
> 
> My programming freedom, as an implementor of window systems, was
> badly dented by the advent of X11.  *PLEASE* could the LPF adopt
> a less emotive and more accurate name.....


The LPF seems to be more troubled about patents causing problems to 
programmers than protecting the rights of developers under the patent 
code. That is where it's name comes from. 



For names, how about:  "League of Justice", "Legion of Superheroes" or 
"Hall of Justice" ?            

Moderator: Don't even think about erasing the joke, eh?

-- 
Alex Lopez-Ortiz                              alopez-o@maytag.UWaterloo.ca
Deparment of Computer Science                       University of Waterloo
Waterloo, Ontario                                                   Canada
From: eggert@twinsun.com (Paul Eggert)
Newsgroups: comp.patents
Subject: Re: The future of comp.patents
Date: 14 Apr 92 07:12:03 GMT
Organization: Twin Sun, Inc

sps@email.sp.unisys.com (Steven P. Skabrat) writes:

>the majority of the traffic here is leftist claptrap propaganda about
>how the sky will fall down if we allow software patents.

Skabrat is mistaken.  Both sides are being heard in comp.patents.
The end of this message contains statistics about recent comp.patents postings.
The summary statistics are as follows.

  number of postings
  with this position	     position
         6		against software patents
         6		for software patents
         2		can't tell whether it's for or against
        14		on some other subject


Skabrat is seriously confused if he equates opposition to software
patents with ``leftist claptrap propaganda''.  Much of the opposition
is based on realistic fears by small software developers like myself
that software patents will be used by big companies to stifle
competition, and will thus discourage software innovation.  It's hardly
``leftist'' to prefer the free market to the current software patent mess.

>thats what the United States copyright and patent systems are based on.
>Its worked for over 200 years and look where our country is
>technologically because of it.

On the contrary, software was largely exempt from the scope of patents
in our country until a very few years ago.  This worked for over 30 years,
and look where our country is technologically because of it.  Why are
we screwing around with a system that was working?


Here is the list of comp.patents postings that I promised.
This lists covers all the postings in our current news database.
The `ID' column lists that posting's Message-ID,
e.g. the first listing is for <4605@cluster.cs.su.oz.au>.
The `position' column is interpreted as follows:

     -  against software patents
     0  on some other subject
     +  for software patents
     ?	can't tell whether it's for or against

Some of the `position' column entries are judgment calls,
but if you don't believe me you can go back and make the judgments yourself.


ID   position   author
4605    0   Barry Margolin
4606    -   Ernest Hua
4607    0   Jim Adcock
4608    -   Dan Bernstein
4609    0   Michael T. Doughney
4610    0   Graham Toal
4611    0   Rob Warnock
4612    -   Brendan Scott
4614    0   Jason W Solinsky
4615    0   Terry Ritter
4616    0   Jon Webb
4617    +   Carl Oppedahl
4618    -   Kurt Cockrm
4619    ?   Alex Lopez-Ortiz
4623    +   Peter Treloar
4626    0   Jim Adcock
4627    +   Kim Letkeman
4628    0   Gregory Aharonian
4629    +   Carl Oppedahl
4630    -   Dan Bernstein
4643    0   Peter Treloar
4651    0   Terry Ritter
4652    ?   Arthur Rubin
4653    +   Rob Warnock
4654    0   Terry Ritter
4655    0   Carl Oppedahl
4656    +   Steven P. Skabrat
From: 0001811496@mcimail.com (Carl Oppedahl)
Newsgroups: comp.patents
Subject: Re: Patents & Newspaper Stories Prior to Patent Application
Date: 17 Apr 92 01:39:50 GMT

Imran Anwar (ia4@cunixa.cc.columbia.edu) writes:
 
>I was told that one has to apply for a patent in the USA within one year 
>of any date when the information about the product/design/invention may
>have been made public by some way in some publication for example, but,
>I was told that if the exposure took place abroad then the one year 
>system does not apply.
>
>Interesting thought: Suppose someone wants to give a news item about their
>invention in the US and plans to apply for a patent within the year of that.
>But, these days so many international news services exist that the news
>can easily be lifted/carried by newspapers abroad.  Does that take away
>the right of the inventor to apply for a patent even though he/she may
>not even have had anything to do with the news going abroad?
 
If the patent you wish to apply for is a patent in a country other than the 
U.S., you should talk to a patent lawyer in that country to get the full 
scoop on what will bar patentability.  Generally, you must file prior to
the public divulgation of the invention.  (What counts as divulgation?  The
answer is "it depends".)
 
If the patent you wish to apply for is a patent in the U.S., you need to have
filed (1) no later than one year from the first publication of the invention 
anywhere in the world;  and (2) no later than one year from the first sale
or offer for sale of the invention in the United States.
 
So a news item anywhere -- in the US or elsewhere -- is going to start that
one-year clock running.
 
But a sale or offer for sale would have to be in the US to start the one-year
clock running.
 
Again, talk to a lawyer.  If you think you may have invented something, then
things like this are important enough you should not rely on an informal 
communication with others.  Talk to a lawyer.
 
Carl Oppedahl
30 Rockefeller Plaza
New York, NY  10112-0228
From: jkp@cs.HUT.FI (Jyrki Kuoppala)
Newsgroups: comp.patents
Subject: Re: The future of comp.patents
Date: 14 Apr 92 08:35:52 GMT
Organization: Helsinki University of Technology, Finland

In article <4656@cluster.cs.su.oz.au>, sps@email (Steven P. Skabrat) writes:
>For 99.99999% of the US population what is important is that when someone
>creates or invents something, the inventor can protect that creation
>through the legal process so that others don't steal the result of his
>ingenuity.

I suppose you mean that for someone who applies for a patent, it's
important for him to prevent others from independently discovering
something and using the results of their own work and also important
to make money by restricting the freedom of others by letting the
governments enforce an artificial monopoly for his product.

>This result gives people the incentive to create, invent,
>produce, etc.  Call it capitalistic greed, conservatism, whatever.

This incentive is a byproduct of the patent system, not the reason for
it.  I have no idea what would be "preserving the status quo"
(conservatism) about it, at least when applied to software patents it
seems to be it would be conservative to oppose software patents.

>But
>thats what the United States copyright and patent systems are based on.

No, it's based on the principle of advancing the state of scienses and
arts.  Patents are there to encourage publication of the results of
the inventions, not to create artificial monopolies which can be used
to make some companies profitable off everyone else's back.

//Jyrki
From: nevries@cc.ruu.nl (Nico de Vries.)
Newsgroups: comp.patents
Subject: DES patented?
Date: 15 Apr 92 10:47:18 GMT
Organization: Academic Computer Centre Utrecht



Does anyone know if DES is patented? If not is anyone outside the US
allowed to sell DES software (including to the US)?


Nico de Vries
-----------------------------------------------------------------------------
USENET: nevries@cc.ruu.nl                 FIDO      : 2:281/708.1  (very new) 
VOICE : +31-3404-24931 (+31-30-316931)    FAX       : +31-30-312033 
BBS   : +31-30-341401 (Nico De_vries)     COMPUSERVE: (coming)
MAIL  : Hortensialaan 45, 3702VE, Zeist, The Netherlands 

IMPORT StdDisclaimer, MyPersonalOpinion;          - O   Place reserved for
Complaints about my spelling to DEV/NUL please.    |    funny joke. Sugestions 
I work for BITECH, I don't SPEAK for BITECH.      \_/   apreciated.

[mod- note that any patent on DES or any other subject matter will only
apply for the country that the patent is issued in, and for
infringements occurring in that country (some minor problems do
sometimes arise in contributory infringement etc.). Hence as Nico is
from the Netherlands, then any US patent will not apply to him (or
citizens resident in any other country), hence the question that need be
asked perhaps is "Is there anyway that DES could be patented in the
Netherlands?]
From: eggert@twinsun.com (Paul Eggert)
Newsgroups: comp.patents
Subject: Re: Recent Patent Office policy issues
Date: 14 Apr 92 06:53:08 GMT
Organization: Twin Sun, Inc

a_rubin@dsg4.dse.beckman.com (Arthur Rubin) writes:

>In <4628@cluster.cs.su.oz.au> srctran@world.std.com (Gregory Aharonian) writes:

>>    The US also will insist that other countries change their laws to deter
>>large corporations from attempting to block the issuance of patents to other
>>parties through the use of orchestrated challenges.

>Isn't that what LPF is trying to do on Usenet in regard some "software" patents?

The LPF is doing no such thing.  Please [explain why you
consider this to be the case and the facts upon which you rely]
From: kim@Software.Mitel.COM (Kim Letkeman)
Newsgroups: comp.patents
Subject: Re: Preemptive patents/copyrights - alternate LPF strategy
Date: 9 Apr 92 06:25:15 GMT
	<4548@cluster.cs.su.oz.au> <4576@cluster.cs.su.oz.au>
Organization: MITEL Public Switching, Kanata, Ontario, Canada


In article <4576@cluster.cs.su.oz.au> is2!alg@uunet.uu.net (Al Guintu) writes:

| it should be noted here, however, that i'm not against software
| patents and copyrights.  what i'm against is the unfair abuse of
| patents and copyrights where software and computing is concerned.
| what will ultimately settle much of this bickering is nothing short
| of a complete overhaul of what is considered patentable and
| copyrightable, and the terms and conditions under which patents and
| copyrights are maintained.

It is unlikely that anything will settle this bickering. There are
enough people that are generally satisfied with the current system
that a complete overhaul would merely cause the two sides to swap
their "burdens of proof".

By this I mean that the anti-software patent side currently must
convince the Congress that the system should be overhauled and that
exceptions should be made for software technology. After the overhaul,
those believing that the system should have been left alone would
inherit this burden.

In any event, regardless of which scenario we end up with (current
patent system or overhauled patent system), we'll never really know
which one would have been better, because only one will be allowed to
play out to its conclusion.
--
Kim Letkeman	kim@Software.Mitel.COM
From: 0001811496@mcimail.com (Carl Oppedahl)
Newsgroups: comp.patents
Subject: USPTO backlogs
Date: 11 Apr 92 07:27:06 GMT

Each week, the Official Gazette of the U.S. Patent Office prints
a report showing the state of the application backlog for each 
examining group.  Note that this list does not show the time from filing 
an application to obtaining a patent.  It shows something else, 
namely the time from filing to the first communication from the 
examiner to the applicant.  That first communication is usually an
"office action", although now and again it will be a "notice of allowance"
indicating that the Patent Office, at that stage, feels the invention
is patentable.
 
I have abridged the descriptions of the examining groups -- the full
description for each group is much lengthier.
 
Backlogs at the U.S. Patent Office, as of March 17, 1992.
 
Examining area                              Group   Oldest
                                            Number  Case
 
Chemical
 
General Metallurgical, Inorganic etc.        110    Dec. 90
Organic Chemistry                            120    May  91
Chemical Engineering                         130    Feb. 91
Plastics                                     150    Aug. 90
Biotechnology                                180    Aug. 90
 
Electrical
 
Physics                                      210    July 90
Special Laws                                 220    July 90
Information Processing                       230    Nov. 89
Packages, Cleaning, Textiles                 240    Jan. 91
Electronic and Optical                       250    Jan. 91
Communications                               260    Aug. 90
Design                                       290    May  89
 
Mechanical
 
Handling and Transportation                  310    Apr. 91
Material Shaping                             320    Mar. 91
Mechanical Technologies                      330    Dec. 90
Solar, Heat, Power                           340    Mar  91
Construction, Petroleum, Mining              350    Jan. 91
 
As you will note, one of the largest backlogs is in the
Information Processing group.  That group gets most of the
software-related patent applications, although Communications
(group 260) also gets some of them.  I attribute this to the
limited number of examiners in group 230, and the policy
balance made by the group in favor of not rushing the
applications through the examination process, even if that
means they grow into a backlog.
From: ritter@cactus.org (Terry Ritter)
Newsgroups: comp.patents
Subject: New Version 3 of Patent It Yourself
Date: 8 Apr 92 09:24:42 GMT
X-Mailer: ELM [version 2.3 PL11]


[mod- will insert in faq...]

 Version 3 of the book "Patent it Yourself" by patent
 attorney--and former patent examiner--David Pressman
 is now available.  This book may be the single best
 nonprofessional reference for understanding the process
 of patent application and prosecution in the US, and by
 inference, the patent system itself.

 The new version has white covers; the previous version
 was black and should now be considered obsolete for new
 purchases, if only because of the new PTO fee structure:

    Patent copies . . . . . . . . . . . . $3
    Certified copy of file  . . . . . . $150

 Utility Patents (small entity)
    Application . . . . . . . . . . . . $345
    Issue fee . . . . . . . . . . . . . $565
    Maintenance fee I . . . . . . . . . $450
    Maintenance fee II  . . . . . . . . $905
    Maintenance fee III . . . . . . .  $1365


 Apparently, individual owners of an earlier version may
 upgrade to the new one at a 25% discount from the list
 price of $34.95.  The new number for Nolo Press is
 (510) 549-1976.  I just read this in my copy; I am not
 associated with them at all.

 Although I have not read the new version completely, I
 have transferred all my extensive highlighting and notes
 from the old version to the new:

    * The complete text, tables, forms and most charts
    have been re-typeset.

    * Editing has occasionally changed the presentation
    style somewhat; a word or two may change in a sentence.
    Occasionally the text is a bit clearer.

    * Some parts were re-organized, and have different and
    added headings and numberings.

    * Some areas have an additional paragraph or two.

    * Some errors were fixed (and probably some added).

    * Otherwise, the new version seems mostly word-for-word
    the same as the old.

    * I have yet to find any serious new insights.

    * Figure 10-A (the drawing layouts for the three allowed
    paper sizes) is far worse than the in version 2.2.
    It is now barely legible.


 To be safe, if you are seriously considering an actual
 application or prosecution, or cannot stand the possibility
 that you may miss out on something, you should probably get
 the new version.

 Otherwise, the old version will still provide a broad basis
 for understanding the patent system, protecting an invention,
 constructing an application and claims, prosecuting the
 application in the PTO, and licensing.  Other than the fee
 structure, relatively little has changed.

 ---
 Terry Ritter    Ritter Software Engineering    (512) 892-0494
From: barmar@think.com (Barry Margolin)
Newsgroups: comp.patents
Subject: Re: Claim Interpretation (was Re: Patent descriptions in text)
Date: 7 Apr 92 06:48:47 GMT
Organization: Thinking Machines Corporation, Cambridge MA, USA
NNTP-Posting-Host: gandalf.think.com

In article <4580@cluster.cs.su.oz.au> marcos@netcom.com (Marcos H. Woehrmann) writes:
>But based on that statement the claim in the dictionary search algorithm
>that covers stopping if the first n letters of the word aren't in the
>dictionary would have been disallowed since I've been looking up words
>in the dictionary using that technique for years.  

The spelling checker patent claims specifically refer to using a certain
hierarchical data structure for the dictionary, not an alphabetic list of
words.  I don't know about you, but whenever I manually look up words in
the dictionary, the dictionary has simply been an alphabetic list of words.

Actually, there's one way in which lookups in paper dictionaries might be
similar to the patented process.  Many dictionaries have cutouts to make it
easy to open directly to a particular first letter.  I think the patent
claims refer to a dictionary structure that uses a different structure for
the first N characters than the remaining characters.  However, I still
don't think the patent describes the second level of structure as being
alphabetically ordered.
-- 
Barry Margolin
System Manager, Thinking Machines Corp.

barmar@think.com          {uunet,harvard}!think!barmar
From: ed@titipu.meta.com (Edward Reid)
Newsgroups: comp.patents
Subject: Re: Patents and their form of expression
Date: 14 Apr 92 08:37:40 GMT
Organization: Metalogic
X-Mailer: uAccess - Macintosh Release: 1.9b1
Content-Type: text
Content-Length: 2658

In article <1992Mar04.022358.8026@clarinet.com>, brad@clarinet.com (Brad Templeton) writes:
> To my mind, an encrypted message is as much a thing as a piece of rubber.
> Why is it so different to you?

Rubber is molecules in a specific arrangement.

A message is an arrangement of an unspecified substrate.

It's a difference between whether the substrate is primary or irrelevant,
and whether the arrangement is secondary or primary.  That's about the most
fundamental difference I can imagine.

= = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = =

I'm unsure as to whether this needs additional explanation.  I like the
simplicity of the above -- a simple explanation in response to a simple
question.  But one person has already indicated feeling the need for more, and
I don't want anyone to miss the point simply because what was brief to me was
obscure to another.

I think Brad's question is very important: the central question in the entire
debate.  Slightly rephrased, the question is "why is information different from
matter?".

Once I rephrase the question, I feel a bit surprised that we still have to
explain this.  It is now well over forty years since Claude Shannon laid the
foundations of information theory, which has been one of the most valuable
tools in computing.  We have a large and successful industry built on treating
information as something distinct from matter.  This thing called information
has firm theoretical and practical underpinnings.  Yes, information is real. 
That does not make it equivalent to matter.

My two initial statements are the simplest definition I have formulated of
the practical distinction between matter and information (represented,
respectively, by rubber and a message).  Information is carried by an
arrangement of some kind of matter or energy, but the nature of that matter or
energy -- the substrate -- is irrelevant.  Whether represented by stone
monoliths, pits on a polycarbonate disk, or electrical phase changes in a metal
wire, the message does not change.  Information is an arrangement of an
unspecified substrate.

Matter is different: the substrate counts.  In fact, one normally views the
substrate as coming first -- in the beginning we have molecules, then we
arrange them to form a specific substance.  The arrangement is still important,
but so is the substrate, a specific mix of molecules.  The arrangement and the
substrate interact essentially, and in doing so exist as matter.

That difference is what I find to be fundamental.

Edward Reid  (8-}>
  eel:   ed@titipu.meta.com  or  nosc.mil!titipu.meta.com!ed
  snail: PO Box 378/Greensboro FL 32330
From: brnstnd@KRAMDEN.ACF.NYU.EDU (Dan Bernstein)
Newsgroups: comp.patents
Subject: Re: Dictionary speller (US4783761) Claim Interperation
Date: 9 Apr 92 06:41:51 GMT
Organization: IR

>    Yes, and that's exactly the scheme described by Knuth, volume 3, page
>    486 (start from the top), 1973, as well as many other sources.
> Knuth actually documents the reverse strategy, which uses a tree for
> the first few level, and a list of keys for the rest.  -- J

Actually, he documents both. See the exercises. The point is that
there's no conceivable way that the subject of the claim could be
considered novel. If the USPTO had a blanket policy of rejecting mental
processes---even mental processes performed with the aid of a computer,
or applied in non-essential ways to physical elements---then the patent
examiner would not have needed to be familiar with Knuth in order to
reject the claim at hand.

---Dan