HDTenEightyP/NetNews huggingface dataset:
From: David.Heiney@f20.n112.z1.fidonet.org (David Heiney)
Newsgroups: comp.org.eff.talk
Subject: Ticketmaster privacy
Date: 24 Sep 92 19:01:00 GMT
Article-I.D.: puddle.3333.2AC4C485
Organization: FidoNet node 1:112/20 - Medical Information, Jacksonville Fl

BS>What possible use could this survey have from a scientific standpoint?

  Just think... if:
  >someone nearly over their VISA limit was ordering Sinatra tickets and
  >voting for Clinton

  Then VISA could intraduce their new Platinum, or whatever is better than gold, card at Sinatra concerts... or Clinton could back them.  Any report linking two area of information together could be worth big bucks... if you can find the right person to buy it.

  >Are they comparing my credit record with my political stance?

  Why not?  (Besides the fact that, I believe, they can't access your credit for any other purpose than agreed apon... like that stops people anyway).  Again, that would be valuable... You could find out if Clinton is popular with the upper-class or lower-class (in general, not pertaining to you).

  >If not, why would Ticketmaster care?

  Maybe you just got a 'weird' receptionist? :-]

  >Who was that outside my door?  Why are you staring at me?

  You shouldn't be paranoid about information.  It is the 'information' age in which we live.  If anyone has info on you, then everyone does. If it's not supposed to be told, then it is sold!  (Hey nice play on words!).  I just believe, you say it... you minas well (sp?) have told everyone!  Nothing is private.

/ David Heiney  4804 Oakside Dr ------ medinfo.jax.fl.us  R/O Compat.  \
\ ->MEDINFO --- Jacksonville FL 32244  1:112/20 --------- Netmail Cpt. /



--  
uucp: uunet!m2xenix!puddle!112!20!David.Heiney
Internet: David.Heiney@f20.n112.z1.fidonet.org
Xref: sparky comp.org.eff.talk:6036 misc.int-property:1055 alt.suit.att-bsdi:377 comp.unix.bsd:6543
From: brnstnd@nyu.edu (D. J. Bernstein)
Newsgroups: comp.org.eff.talk,misc.int-property,alt.suit.att-bsdi,comp.unix.bsd
Subject: Re: Patents:  What they are.  What they aren't.  Other factors.
Date: 29 Sep 92 20:32:31 GMT
Organization: IR

Scott says that opposition to patents on mental processes---including
mental processes applied in an inessential way to physical objects---
implies opposition to physical process patents. This is a rehash of his
old argument from comp.patents. As before Scott ignores the crucial word
``inessential.''

It is essential that, to cure rubber, you actually take a physical piece
of rubber and do something to it. You can't complete the rubber-curing
process without physical action.

It is not essential that, to apply the LZW algorithm, you actually take
a physical disk and compress the bits on it. The fact that LZW applies
to data on disks, on paper, on tapes, in memory, and in your head,
should make it clear that the physical application of LZW to bits on
disk is not essential to the process.

In article <a=+p43j.mcgregor@netcom.com> mcgregor@netcom.com (Scott Mcgregor) writes:
> Now real physical effects are happening: digital signals on a control
> line in a modem are changing, magnetic polarities in disks are
> changing, phosphorescent displays are changing all according to
> certain processes.

The United States Supreme Court calls such effects ``insignificant''
and, rightly, ignores them in determining whether a process is
patentable.

If you can't patent LZW-in-your-head, then you also can't patent
LZW-writing-to-disk. The ``writing to disk'' part is just too trivial.
Put differently: If you could make a mathematical algorithm patentable
simply by adding ``and then we write the result to a storage device'' to
it, then any novice patent lawyer could turn any mathematical algorithm
into something patentable. This would defeat the entire purpose of
prohibiting such patents.

I'm treading on solid legal ground here. Read what the courts have said
about patenting the Pythagorean theorem; it's exactly what I say above.

---Dan
Newsgroups: comp.org.eff.talk
From: mc/G=Brad/S=Hicks/OU=0205925@mhs.attmail.com
Subject: Re- EFFector Online 3.06- B
Originator: daemon@eff.org
Organization: EFF mail-news gateway
Date: Mon, 5 Oct 1992 21:47:29 GMT

Date: 10/5/92   6:09 PM
Subj: Re: EFFector Online 3.06: Bruce Sterling
 
 > The business about drugs is not relevant because drugs are inherently
bad
 > (I don't think they are), but because most of us find it difficult to
 > accept as altruistic the acts of a person who committed crimes and
sought
 > to be paid for these crimes in drugs or in money with which to buy
drugs
 > (as in Hagbard's case) or in money with which to buy new computer
 > equipment (as in Pengo's case).
 
Unless I missed a message, this is the closest you've come to answering
any of my questions in my earlier message with the subject "Filthy Lucre."
 So:
 
Why?
 
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?  I must say (as
anybody who knows me would tell you) that =I= certainly do things in order
to get money to buy new computer equipment; I just the other day upgraded
to a V.32bis modem.  So does the fact that I maintain LANs and LAN
equipment and get paid "in money with which to buy new computer equipment"
make it immoral to manage LANs, or for me to do so?
 
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?  If it is ever moral to commit a crime, then why is it immoral to
get paid for committing that crime?
 
I think I see where you're going.  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?
 
If so, then I think I finally understand your position.  If so, I still
disagree; as I've said several times, I'm still libertarian enough to
think that if it's moral to do something, it's moral to get somebody else
to pay you to do it.
 
(P.S.  "Most of us find it difficult to accept"?  Did you take a poll?
How do you =know= that that's how "most of us" feel?  But please, don't
let this question distract you from answering the more important ones
above.)
 
 ----------------------------------------------------------------------
 J. Brad Hicks                 | Poor is the man whose pleasures depend
 mhs!mc!Brad_Hicks@attmail.com | on the permission of another.
 
Xref: sparky comp.org.eff.talk:6169 misc.int-property:1109 comp.unix.bsd:6729 alt.suit.att-bsdi:427
From: mellon@ncd.com (Ted Lemon)
Newsgroups: comp.org.eff.talk,misc.int-property,comp.unix.bsd,alt.suit.att-bsdi
Subject: Re: Patents: What they are. What they aren't. Other factors.
Date: 1 Oct 92 19:22:54 GMT
Followup-To: comp.org.eff.talk
Distribution: usa

wcs@anchor.ho.att.com (Bill Stewart +1-908-949-0705) writes:
>discoveries, but in the case of RSA, the patent process has encouraged
>them to make their discoveries available to the public.

Hunh?   The only reason public key encryption is not currently in wide use
is *because* of the RSA patent, whose claims are so general and so vigourously
defended that the existance of that patent has had a chilling effect on the
entire industry.   The RSA patent is not an example of how the patent system
has had a positive effect on the industry.

				_MelloN_
--
mellon@ncd.com						uunet!lupine!mellon
Member, League for Programming Freedom | To learn how software patents could
cost you your right to program, contact the LPF - league@prep.ai.mit.edu
From: iiitac@cybaswan.UUCP (Alan Cox)
Newsgroups: comp.org.eff.talk
Subject: Re: 386 Box + Unix
Date: 28 Sep 92 09:37:36 GMT
Organization: University College Swansea


386BSD has no support yet for DOS. I'm confident it will appear. 

Linux has a very crude DOS emulator (watch this space I've been improving
it a great deal). It's now good enough to simulate most bits of the
PC bios, and virtually no hardware. The hardware simulation will be
the nasty part.
I've been running quite a bit of text only DOS stuff. All of which
thinks its got a mono 640K PC/AT with no serial/parallel ports (
serial ports are comign tonight 8-)).

Alan
Newsgroups: comp.org.eff.talk
From: george@wixer.cactus.org (George Wenzel)
Subject: Re: 386 Box + Unix
Organization: Real/Time Communications
Date: Sat, 26 Sep 92 15:02:44 GMT

In article <Bv5y95.B58@news.cso.uiuc.edu> tinsel@uiuc.edu writes:
>
>Nice Generic PC-Compatible ......................$2500
I hope this is a 486-50 with a big hard drive and a good quality monitor...
otherwise that isn't a cheap price.  386-40 motherboards only cost $200 to
$250.
>BSD386............................................free
>or, 
>   A good 386 Unix..........................$200-$1000

-- 
George Wenzel                    |  Real/Time Communications
george@wixer.cactus.org          |  "faster, smarter and costs less..."
cactus.org!wixer!george          |  "Hardware solutions for the real world."
-----------------------------------------------------------------------------
Newsgroups: comp.org.eff.talk,misc.int-property,alt.suit.att-bsdi,comp.unix.bsd
From: gtoal@ibmpcug.co.uk (Graham Toal)
Newsgroups: comp.org.eff.talk
Subject: FBI digital telephony bill?  (Tapping BBSes)
Keywords: significant words from a document used as an index to content
Date: 27 Sep 92 18:21:58 GMT
Organization: The IBM PC User Group, UK.

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

Is this urban legend, or some adjunct to the FBI digital telephony bill?

I haven't heard of this, so if you know something please post.

G
-- 
Newsgroups: comp.org.eff.talk
From: jgd@dixie.com (John De Armond)
Subject: Re: Unsolicited commercial email
Date: Sat, 03 Oct 92 05:14:32 GMT
Organization: Dixie Communications Public Access.  The Mouth of the South.

amirza@bronze.ucs.indiana.edu (Anmar Caves) writes:

>I'm not sure if this is the group to post to but...

>I got an advertisement from abacus@gwinnett.com via email advertising
>their services.  I called their 1-800 number and got passed around
>when I expressed my concerns over junk mail via the internet.
>Specifically I'd like to know what can be done about this.

Try this.  Get a large hammer and nail.  Stand on a wooden floor.
Drive the nail through your shoe into the floor, taking care not to
hit a toe.  Now attempt to run.  Continue running around in little 
circles until you so tired that the urge to whine about such 
pettiness has past.

John

-- 
John De Armond, WD4OQC               |Interested in high performance mobility?  
Performance Engineering Magazine (TM) |
Marietta, Ga                         |Interested in high tech and computers? 
jgd@dixie.com                        |Write me about PE Magazine
Need Usenet public Access in Atlanta?  Write Me for info on Dixie.com.
Newsgroups: comp.org.eff.talk
From: steveh@orbital.demon.co.uk (Stephen Hebditch)
Subject: Re: FBI digital telephony bill?  (Tapping BBSes)
Keywords: significant words from a document used as an index to content
Organization: TQM Communications, London, UK
Date: Wed, 30 Sep 1992 13:40:34 GMT

In article <1992Sep29.154025.22603@nntp.hut.fi> jkp@cs.HUT.FI (Jyrki Kuoppala) writes:
>>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.

In what sort of circumstances would an ordinary individual really need
such technology? I can see how people can have an interest in exploring
such technology for its own sake, but surely for the vast majority of
people it is completely irrelevant?

-- 
Stephen Hebditch  TQM Communications  steveh@orbital.demon.co.uk +44 836 825962
Xref: sparky comp.org.eff.talk:6308 misc.int-property:1150 alt.suit.att-bsdi:463 comp.unix.bsd:6971
From: mnemonic@eff.org (Mike Godwin)
Subject: Re: FBI digital telephony bill?  (Tapping BBSes)
Originator: mnemonic@eff.org
Keywords: significant words from a document used as an index to content
Organization: Electronic Frontier Foundation
Date: Tue, 29 Sep 1992 04:27:47 GMT

In article <Bv9zq9.8wx@ibmpcug.co.uk> gtoal@ibmpcug.co.uk (Graham Toal) writes:

>Yes, but which bill? I hadn't heard anything before this about the
>FBI digital telephone-tapping bill applying to bulletin boards.

The same bill. The description of service providers covered by the act
includes bulletin boards and commercial service providers; the bill is not
limited to telephone companies.

>I'm trying to find out of there's *another* bill here that
>hasn't been publicised or if the person I was quoting was merely
>giving garbled details of the FBI telephone-tapping bill.

Neither proposition is correct. The person was giving accurate details.


--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
From: jpk@Ingres.COM (Jon Krueger)
Subject: Re: Patents: What they are. What they aren't. Other factors.
Reply-To: jpk@Ingres.COM (Jon Krueger)
Organization: Ingres Division, ASK Computer Systems.
Distribution: usa
Date: 2 Oct 92 18:35:57 GMT

Ted Lemon) writes:
> must I patent every trivial algorithm that I discover in the
> process of writing a program in order to be protected?

No, you must publish.

-- Jon

Jon Krueger  jpk@ingres.com
From: barmar@think.com (Barry Margolin)
Newsgroups: comp.org.eff.talk
Subject: Re: Unsolicited commercial email
Date: 5 Oct 1992 18:28:41 GMT
Organization: Thinking Machines Corporation, Cambridge MA, USA
Distribution: inet
NNTP-Posting-Host: telecaster.think.com

In article <1992Oct03.002817.21332@clarinet.com> brad@clarinet.com (Brad Templeton) writes:
>However, in the long term it is certain that there will be junk E-mail.
>And I want to encourage it because I think for both us and them it
>is a lot better.

While I agree that the net is a much better medium for advertising than
paper mail, I don't agree that junk email is the appropriate mechanism,
even with the conventions you suggest.  I think conferencing systems like
Usenet are much better suited for advertising than direct email.

First, these systems tend to be organized into categories better than
email; most users just have one incoming mailbox (some users use different
addresses for different mailing lists, but unsolicited mail generally ends
up in the user's primary, uncategorized inbox).

Second, forming a mailing list by collecting the names of posters is likely
to miss many of the appropriate recipients.  There are many people who
mostly read news and rarely post.  Magazines trade their subscriber lists,
not their author lists.

I can understand why the advertisers prefer direct mail to posting to a
newsgroup, for the same reason that many marketing departments use direct
paper mail when magazine advertising is available.  But I dislike receiving
both forms of junk mail....
-- 
Barry Margolin
System Manager, Thinking Machines Corp.

barmar@think.com          {uunet,harvard}!think!barmar
Newsgroups: comp.org.eff.talk,comp.unix.bsd,comp.os.mach,misc.int-property,alt.suit.att-bsdi,comp.sys.mac.advocacy
From: mellon@ncd.com (Ted Lemon)
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: 1 Oct 92 19:19:26 GMT
Followup-To: comp.org.eff.talk
Distribution: usa

jpk@Ingres.COM (Jon Krueger) writes:
>The strategy of the would-be patenter changes: file before
>you publish instead of invent (and datestamp) before you
>publish.


But must I patent every trivial algorithm that I discover in the process
of writing a program in order to be protected?   This could cost me many
thousands of dollars (at $1k/patent), which would be prohibitively expensive
if I were writing software for the public domain, or even for shareware.

				_MelloN_
--
mellon@ncd.com						uunet!lupine!mellon
Member, League for Programming Freedom | To learn how software patents could
cost you your right to program, contact the LPF - league@prep.ai.mit.edu
Newsgroups: comp.org.eff.talk,misc.int-property,alt.suit.att-bsdi,comp.unix.bsd
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: Fri, 2 Oct 1992 14:12:29 GMT

In article <id.L2QT.VO2@ferranti.com>, peter@ferranti.com (peter da silva) writes:
| In article <1992Sep30.143205.3171@rwwa.COM> witr@rwwa.com writes:
| > don't currently have the patent handy) I expect the LZW patent claims
| > a process which is the application of an algorithm to a specific use.
| 
| To be precise, it is a patent on a disk control system. LZW is a patent
| on using this algorithm in the mainframe equivalent of a Stacker card.
| The question is... does this mean that I can or cannot use this algorithm
| in a modem? 

In general the court will apply the ``doctrine of equivalents'' and the
``doctrine of file-wrapper estoppel''.  These two, contrdictory, doctrines
deal with similarity between a potential infringer's produce and the claims
of the patent.

Consider a patent that claims (farsically) an ``apparatus for mesmerising
rats, comprising a paterned spherical ball mounted on a shaft, said ball 
comprising a glass ball painted with geometric paterns...''.  Suppose you
have invented a similar device using a steel ball.  Do you infringe?

Using the doctrine of equivalents, the court may decide that, in this use,
steel is a recognized equivalent of glass, and that making the ball out
of steel instead of glass does not avoid the patent claim.

Alternatively, if the patent uses the word glass because the claim would
have been rejected by the PTO (as overbroad or whatever), then by the
doctrine of file wrapper estoppel, using steel instead of glass the claim
would be avoided.

Thus, to answer your question, one must a) read the patent *and* all of the
proceedings before the PTO, and b) one must determine what precedent says
about the equivalency of data transmission via modem and data storage on disk.

I am not a judge (and I don't play one ;-) ) but I would probably decide
that use in a modem is not equivalent to a disk, and would not support
an infringement action, using an argument like ``a hose is not equivalent
to a tub''.

Has this patent been litigated?

-- 
 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
From: jim.wenzel@grapevine.lrk.ar.us (Jim Wenzel)
Newsgroups: comp.org.eff.talk
Subject: Re: Banned Computer Material 1992
Date: 2 Oct 92 04:03:00 GMT
Reply-To: jim.wenzel@grapevine.lrk.ar.us (Jim Wenzel)
Organization: The GrapeVine BBS *** N. Little Rock, AR *** (501) 753-8121


Hank Nussbacher * The reason I am extremely  annoyed is that this is not
                  the first time that people  in the USA assume that the
                  entire world has to jump  in line to their definitions
                  of how the world should  work. No wonder that American
                  foreign policy around the  world has nose-dived in the
                  past  20 years.  Why do  you think  people demonstrate
                  against the "Great Satan" in  Iran or Indochina or the
                  Phillipines?  Americans are  extremely insensitive  to
                  cultures other than their own.  Your posting is a very
                  good example that things have not changed.
                                 = = =

   While I agree  a good portion of the US  is oblivious to what happens
   around the world.. I also am somewhat peeved at the billions we spend
   supporting the  same countries that  spout "Great Satan".  This is an
   unfortunate  circumstance which  we as  Americans have  to take  full
   responsibility for.. The  current thought is that if  we throw enough
   money at  it it will go  away. Personally, I think  we ought to scrap
   the loan guarantees, subsidies, and the entire foreign policy instead
   spending those same monies on internal problems.

   Sorry, I know  this is off-topic for this news  group.. but, felt the
   need to speak.

   *****************************************************************
   *  Jim Wenzel,    SysOp,    The GrapeVine BBS,   (501) 753-8121 *
   *  RIME,  Use-Net,  ForthNet,  SmartNet,  MetroLink,  Intelec , *
   *  RecoverNet, ThrobNet and MediaNet message echos.  Large IBM, *
   *  Amiga, Adult and  Programming file areas.  5.7 gigs on-line. *
   *****************************************************************

---
 * SM 1.06 A0059 * UseNet : A talk show without a host.
From: ygoland@edison.seas.ucla.edu (The Jester)
Newsgroups: comp.org.eff.talk
Subject: Help! Re:Archie
Date: 27 Sep 92 09:12:13 GMT
Organization: PGP VER2 Key Available Upon Request

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

			Thanks,
					The Jester
-- 
			The Jester
"The Arabs want us dead. We want to be alive. Compromise between
these two positions is not exactly easy."-Golda Meir (Stolen from
rivk@quads.uchicago.edu)
Newsgroups: comp.org.eff.talk