Monster Media 1993 #3/MONSTER.ISO/textfile/pp2.cap

Text File | 1993-09-19 | 39KB | 1,110 lines

=================================================================
From: [e-mail]         Date: 09-17-93 (10:51)
  To: ALL                        Number: 1053   [136] legal.comp
Subj: Re: Bay Area software pat  Status: Public
-----------------------------------------------------------------
SUBJECT:Re: Bay Area software patents by companies and law firms
Organization: Motorola IPD

In article <[e-mail]>,
[e-mail] (D. J. Bernstein) wrote:

> In article <278ees$[e-mail]> [e-mail] (Carl
Oppedahl) writes:
> > What an exalted position some software writers think they are
in!
>
> What are you reacting to, Carl? Paul was correcting a
misconception
> about the purpose of the patent system. He used independent
reinvention
> as an example---which, he parenthetically pointed out, is typical
in the
> case of software. He didn't say it was _limited_ to software.

Which neatly undermines the argument that software is somehow
"special"
IMHO!
--
Mike Waters  [e-mail]  [e-mail]

=================================================================
From: [e-mail]         Date: 09-17-93 (12:59)
SUBJECT:Re: The simplest shareware situation
Organization: TheNews

In article <[e-mail]>
[e-mail] (D. J. Bernstein) writes:
>In article <bhayden.746006079@teal> [e-mail] (Bruce
Hayden)
writes:
>> [e-mail] (D. J. Bernstein) writes:
>> >In article <bhayden.745572266@teal> [e-mail] (Bruce
Hayden)
writes:
>> >> As has been repeated repeatedly also, shrinkwrap is invalid
as a license
>> >> because it is a sale.
>> >No. Shrinkwrap is invalid as a license because the customer
never agrees
>> >to it. You cannot force someone into a contract!
>> Interesting. I have never seen a case like this.
>
>How about Vault v. Quaid, 847 F.2d 255? The shrinkwrap license
agreement
>was held to be unenforceable for _exactly_ this reason.
>
>(The only way it could have been made enforceable was through the
>Louisiana Software License Enforcement Act, which, as the court
said,
>was preempted by Federal copyright law. Louisiana could not remove
the
>Section 117 rights of an _owner_ by redefining him, without his
consent,
>as a _licensee_.)

I'm not sure that I would read this into Vault -- if I understand
what the
court was saying (and I may not!), the shrinkwrap license was
indeed a contract
of adhesion.  The court did not, however, say that such a contract
was per se
invalid -- it looked to the pertainent state law and found the
Software License
Enforcement Act permitted it.  However, it then ruled that this Act
was
overbroad in that it extended the owner rights limited by federal
copyright
law.

The court does not say so, but I think it is a fair interpretation,
that if the
state act had not contradicted the copyright law, it would have
been valid and
the contract of adhesion, ie, the shrinkwrap license, would have
been
permissible.  Likewise, if common law indicated some circumstances
where such
contracts were permissible, the court would have been bound to
interpret the
particular shrink wrap license in light of those circumstances.

Bottom line, I think, is that whether or not a shrinkwrap license
is enforcable
is strictly a matter of *state* law.

Bill Cramer

| 1257 Worcester Road, Suite 196     | "If the law supposes
*that*,...
| Framingham, MA  01701  USA         |    the law is an ass, an
idiot."
| Internet: [e-mail]     |        -- Dickens
| CIS: 70322,3412                    |




=================================================================
From: [e-mail]         Date: 09-17-93 (13:11)
SUBJECT:Query: legal status of shareware fee request
Organization: Center for Seismic Studies, Arlington, VA

I'm wondering about the legal status of the fee request that's
included with
shareware.  What does the law have to say about whether one is
required to
pay the requested shareware fee?  Does the shareware licensing
statement
have legal weight?

(I know what the *right* thing to do is.  I just want to know what
the
*legal requirements* are, so I can explain them when asked.)
--
Dennis O'Neill               [e-mail]
703-476-5197
S-Cubed Div. Maxwell Labs 11800 Sunrise Valley Dr. #1212 Reston,
Va. 22091 USA
      Opinions expressed herein are my own and do not necessarily
reflect
                         the opinions of my employer.

=================================================================
From: [e-mail]           Date: 09-17-93 (11:46)
SUBJECT:Re: Bay Area software patents by companies and law firms
Organization: Twin Sun Inc, El Segundo, CA, USA

[e-mail] (Scott L. McGregor) writes:

 This analysis would make me feel better about the LPF case, but
 I do not believe that a non-technical jury or judge would follow
it.

Non-technical juries and judges follow technical arguments all the
time.
Surely they would have little problem following the LPF's proposal.

 such a standard constantly changing, leaving patents granted
 ten years ago valid, but preventing new ones

The patent system already has this property.  Just because a
formerly
patentable idea was never patented, does not mean that the idea is
patentable today.  So this property of the LPF's proposal would not
greatly disturb the patent system.

Scott McGregor's faith in the patent system is boundless.  He
writes
``it's nice that Da Vinci had plans for a helicopter and glider
centurys ago--but not many people benefited'', as if the patent
system
would have given us working 16th-century helicopters.  He cites the
Wright brothers as a case where the patent system worked, even
though
he knows that sad tale of abuse and disappointment.  He thinks the
Diffie-Hellman patent has encouraged commercialization of
public-key
cryptography; this flies in the face of common sense, economics,
and
direct experience.  He thinks that granting monopolies benefits
society
even if the inventions are already published without patents in
mind.

Against faith like this, reason and argument are helpless.

=================================================================
From: [e-mail]         Date: 09-17-93 (10:58)
SUBJECT:Re: A famous example of a bad software patent
Organization: Motorola IPD

In article <[e-mail]>, [e-mail]
(Scott L.
McGregor) wrote:

> In article <[e-mail]>
[e-mail] (D. J. Bernstein) writes:
>
> >factual presentation.'' Now, despite your best efforts to remain
> >ignorant, you have seen an example of a bad patent---a patent
which,
> >by the inventor's own admission, did not serve either the
Constitutional
> >purpose or the legislative purpose of the patent system.
>
> No, all the inventor said was that the patent didn't encourage
him
> to invent it.  However, unless I missed a reply, Dan failed to
> ask the question of whether it encouraged someone to
commercialize it.
> The constitution doesn't say to encourage invention, it says to
> encourage progress.  There is support for the position that the
framers
> intended progess to mean more than invention--to mean widespread
adoption
> and commercialization. Certainly the benefits chosen are better
suited to
> the progress=commercialization interpretation than to the
progress=invention
> interpretation. Dan is of course entitled to his view that the
> progress=invention view is what matters. But it is just one
possible
> interpretation--and Dan's evidence is insufficient to rule out
the
> possibility that the patent DID serve the legislative purpose
under the
> other reasonable interpretation of the term progress.

Exactly my point too!  Just because Dan says it is "bad" does not
make the
patent either unlawful nor that it "doesn't serve the purpose of
the
constitution".

I maintain my previous assertion: all Dan (and the LPF for that
matter has
done is "hand wave" a few patents which are addressed to somewhat
similar
subject matter and claiming they are therefore "obvious" or "bad".
Nowhere
has he cited any issued software patent which really is anticipated
by a
published reference of any sort - including another patent!

I don't deny that a few such patents do exist in software as in any
other
art area, but I see no evidence that they are any more common in
"software"
patents than in any other patents.

--
Mike Waters  [e-mail]  [e-mail]

=================================================================
From: [e-mail]    Date: 09-17-93 (14:16)
SUBJECT:(c) Questions Concerning Sound
Organization: TECHbooks Public Access

Hi.  I have some questions concerning what consitutes public domain
distribution.  My company is involved in writing interactive
educational
software and we are going to incorperate sound that will allow the
playing
of music in the background.  The files that contain that contain
background
music are called MID files.  There are many of these files freely
circulating
around bulettin boards and on the internet.  They do not contain a
copyright
notice of any sort.  The file format used may prohibit embeded
text;  I don't
know.  Have the authors of these files waved all rights of
ownership?  Would
they be able to obtain an injunction or worse, payment for prior
use?  How
would one determine who to contact to obtain rights?  If the song
is a
commercial one (a transcribed rock song, for example), has the
author
violated copyright rules by releasing it as a MID file?  Would we
be in
violation by releasing a game incorperating such a file?  Is there
some
place that we could buy rights to pre-transcribed MID files?  Sorry
for
asking six questions in a row, but hopefully someone on the net who
is
knowledable in copyright law will be able to help us.

Thanks in advance!  Jon.
--
Jon Male  -  [e-mail]

=================================================================
From: [e-mail]     Date: 09-17-93 (14:41)
Subj: Software and the UCC       Status: Public
-----------------------------------------------------------------
Organization: University of Chicago

Now, misc.legal regulars are all aware how the UCC can be used to
avoid traffic tickets.  But the question remains open whether
a custom-made software system is the provision of "services" (not
covered by the UCC) or "goods" (is covered by the UCC).

I'm aware of a case in Indiana calling the software "services"
(though
Indiana common law on warranties is similar enough to the UCC that
the
point was largely moot in that case).  I'm also dimly aware that
NCCUSL
is going to hold one of their conventions in Hawaii (choosing the
island
state for admiralty reasons, of course) and get around to changing
the UCC so that it explicitly covers software.  But if the
net.collective
has any other information on the subject, please post, and maybe we
can
have a discussion on the legal newsgroups that doesn't involve
illegitmate
children.
--
ted frank                 | "Others, they get into an argument and
call me up
[e-mail] | and ask me what I think.  If I tell
them they're
the u of c law school     | right, they'll turn around and say,
'See, even 911
standard disclaimers      | agrees with me.'" -- S. Thurmond, 911
dispatcher

=================================================================
From: [e-mail]    Date: 09-17-93 (15:07)
SUBJECT:Liability for database errors
Organization: ILLINOIS INSTITUTE OF TECHNOLOGY, CHICAGO

I am also doing a research project for my Computer Law course at
Chicago-Kent College of Law.  My project is on an older case:
Penk v. Oregon State Board of Higher Education, 816 F.2d 458
(9th Cir. 1987).

In this case, the appeals court upheld the district court's
decision
to require the petitioners to bear half the cost of correcting a
database the respondents had provided to the petitioners (during
discovery), and which petitioners had used to make statistical
analyses
which were the basis of their entire case (a discrimination case).
The cost of correcting the database was estimated at $100,000, of
which the petitioners would have to pay half.

The question is:  how is this different from paper discovery, and
should it be?  Obviously the courts thought it wasn't different.

If it had been paper files, then the State Board could have
allowed the plaintiffs to enter the premesis and find the info
themselves.  But in the case of raw data in a database, obviously
it's much simpler to produce a report created from the database
containing the information requested (which didn't even exist at
the time of the discovery request).  So who should pay for creating
this report?  Who hires the programmer?

Does it matter?  Does it make any difference in how lawyers in the
real world deal with discovery of information from computer
databases?

I would appreciate any thoughts or input, no matter how trivial,
either posted or in e-mail.

Laura Wallace
Chicago-Kent College of Law, Illinois Institute of Technology
[e-mail]
[e-mail]

=================================================================
From: [e-mail]                Date: 09-17-93 (16:36)
  To: ALL                        Number: 1062   [136] legal.comp
-------------
SUBJECT:software product disclosure headache
Organization: The Aerospace Corporation

Hello everyone,

Not knowing quite where to turn at this point, I'd really
appreciate
hearing opinions/advice on a strategic decision that needs to be
made
by a fellow whom I will call "Joe."

Joe has designed and programmed (what he thinks is) a novel
educational
game / computerized learning environment, let's call it BARBAZ, for
IBM-style
personal computers.  BARBAZ is based on a known game in the "public
domain,"
but weds that game to a certain (also known) model of learning /
philosophy
of education in a manner that, Joe fervently believes, has
potential for
significantly benefitting the world's children.  Indeed, the
marriage of
the game, the philosophy, and the computerized context forms an
important
part of the novelty claimed for BARBAZ.

In addition to his altruistic motives, Joe naturally has personal
hopes
for his product.  His principal objectives for BARBAZ are the
following:

  A. To make him as much money as possible (in part, to free him to
pursue
     further ventures in the spirit of BARBAZ without the
encumbrances
     of an unrelated job); and, relatedly,

  B. To provide a concrete example of Joe's passion and
capabilities
     for presentation to potential employers in the fields of
learning
     research and educational technology.

Ideally, Joe hopes both to make money directly from the product
BARBAZ,
*and* to use BARBAZ as a launch vehicle for joining a group
pursuing the
areas mentioned in objective B.  In the best (but not essential)
scenario,
such a group would become interested in using BARBAZ itself as a
platform
for some of its work.

Having reached an implementation plateau for BARBAZ, Joe is now
pondering
his next steps, with a view toward protecting his enormous
investment of
time, labor, and creative energy (see A.) while at the same time
making
progress in the direction of objective B.  He is confused about the
relative
merits and demerits of the following options:

  1. Register a copyright for BARBAZ.

     - this only protects the source code itself (to which no one
will
       have access anyway in the forseeable future); it does not
protect
       the "idea," nor BARBAZ from reverse engineering

     - the subtleties are not entirely obvious (proper copyright
date?
       location of copyright notice? dependence on standard
libraries
       or commercial packages?)

     - hire legal counsel?

  2. File a patent application for BARBAZ.

     - "Software patent?"  What chance would this have of being
granted
       in this situation?  Would Joe be barking up the wrong tree?

     - Cost? (would definitely need to hire legal cousel)

     - is patenting typical, or inappropriate, for "educational
software,"
       and why?

     - in what ways could this be viewed as a strength or liability
for
       BARBAZ by others, e.g.,  by existing educational software
companies
       or research centers whom Joe might approach ?

  3. Approach another party without having filed for a patent,
hoping to
     negotiate a deal giving that party the rights and burdens
(including
     patenting) in exchange for a decent royalty and a continuing
     intellectual/business relationship.

     - somehow Joe imagines that this is the normal course followed
by
       independent software developers who do not want to deal with
       legal / production / marketing hassles themselves

     - is the potential long-term payoff decreased by not doing 2.
first ?
       or would 2. turn other parties off ?

  4. Approach the directors of Joe's child's private school, who
are likely
     to understand the "idea," to see if they would like to serve
as a
     "test site" or "laboratory" for BARBAZ, and possibly make a
name
     for themselves.

     - advantages: demonstrated success in the field - "proof of
concept" -
       would be a major selling/bargaining point with other parties
       down the road

     - possible pitfall: if this constitutes "public disclosure, it
might
       seriously undercut patent prospects: inside the U.S. after
a year
       and, perhaps even more worrisome, outside the U.S.
immediately.

In short, Joe would like to maximize his gains with respect to
objectives
A. and B. without heading off in some inappropriate direction --
e.g., maybe
putting all plans for leveraging BARBAZ on hold while misguidedly
applying
for a patent just does not promise adequate returns, or vice versa
?

As you can perhaps see, these issues are not merely legal ones, but
have
to do as much with how the social and business structures involved
operate.
Would hiring legal counsel right off the bat really help Joe
resolve all
these questions, or are there some clues to be found in the
folklore of
"how these things are usually done?" (netters!).

And one of Joe's problems is that both his money, and the time that
he
can afford to wait before taking some sort of action, are very
limited.

Thanks, on Joe's behalf, for putting up with this reasonably long
post.
We do hope that the problem it describes pertains to other people
who
find themselves in similar positions.

Best regards,

  Ivan
  [e-mail]

=================================================================
FROM   :[e-mail]
Organization: IR

In article <rcrw90-160993092016@node_142cf.aieg.mot.com>
[e-mail]
(Mike Waters) writes:
> In article <[e-mail]>, [e-mail] (Jean-loup
Gailly)
> > Two examples in the domain of data compression:
> > - The LZW algorithm used in 'compress' is patented by IBM
(4,814,746)
> >   and Unisys (4,558,302). The IBM patent application was first
filed
> >   three weeks before that of Unisys. The IBM patent is more
general,
> >   but its claim 7 is exactly LZW.
> At least in this example, the claims are addressed top completely
different
> things!  Dan claims they are "equivalent" by some method he
refuses to
> explain.

Hmmm? When did I refuse to explain something?

From claim 7 of patent 4,814,746, anyone skilled in the art can
easily
see everything claimed in 4,558,302. The ``method'' involved is
called
``programming.'' I'd be happy to give more details if you really
don't
understand---though it'd be much easier on both of us if you took
some
programming courses first.

---Dan

=================================================================
From: [e-mail]    Date: 09-17-93 (16:55)
SUBJECT:Re: Query: legal status of shareware fee request
Organization: Amdahl

In article <27cuk4$[e-mail]>
[e-mail] (Dennis O'Neill) writes:

> I'm wondering about the legal status of the fee request that's
included with
> shareware.  What does the law have to say about whether one is
required to
> pay the requested shareware fee?  Does the shareware licensing
statement
> have legal weight?
>
> (I know what the *right* thing to do is.  I just want to know
what the
> *legal requirements* are, so I can explain them when asked.)

The legal requirements are uncertain.  Anyone who tells you
otherwise
is full of it.  I can construct equally persuasive arguments on
either
side of the question.

What's more, the situation is unlikely to be clarified anytime
soon,
since the low stakes involved preclude litigation.


=================================================================
From: D. J. Bernstein              Date: 09-17-93 (15:56)
FROM   :[e-mail]
SUBJECT:Re: Bay Area software patents by companies and law firms
Organization: IR

In article <rcrw90-170993085115@node_142cf.aieg.mot.com>
[e-mail]
(Mike Waters) writes:
> Which neatly undermines the argument that software is somehow
"special"
> IMHO!

Entirely illogical. Just because _one_ aspect of software is shared
by
other fields doesn't mean that software is just like everything
else.

A casual look at the LPF's _Against Software Patents_ paper reveals
several characteristics of software: 1. Until recently, patents
were not
used in programming. 2. Programs are protected by copyright. 3.
Many
commonly-used programming techniques do not appear in the
literature.
4. A man-year of programming can produce a huge system (say 100,000
components) which could easily infringe hundreds of patents. 5.
Programs
have essentially zero copying cost. 6. Programs are fundamentally
impossible to classify by their end results. 7. In programming,
independent reinvention is commonplace.

What else shares these characteristics? Business methods, perhaps,
and
mathematics---neither of which is patentable.

And the fact that software is special is not an ``argument''; it's
just
a summary of the situation. It means that the proposals to
eliminate
software patents are not proposals to eliminate _all_ patents.

---Dan
*************************************************************

=================================================================
FROM   :[e-mail]
SUBJECT:RE: THE SIMPLEST SHAREWARE SITUATION
Organization: IR

In article <[e-mail]> [e-mail] (Bill
Cramer)
writes:
> Bottom line, I think, is that whether or not a shrinkwrap license
> is enforcable is strictly a matter of *state* law.

But that's exactly what Vault v. Quaid established was _not_ the
case!

Federal copyright law preempts any attempt by the states to take
away
the rights of owners. You (like Conley, the loudest critic of
Vault)
seem to think that the states can dodge this restriction by
redefining
owners as licensees. If this were true, preemption would be
useless!
Any aspect of the copyright law could be changed by state
definitions.

Only two state legislatures (Louisiana and Illinois) have even
_tried_
to subvert copyright law in this way. The Louisiana law was
declared
unenforceable, and in light of this case I don't think anyone would
be
silly enough to rely on the Illinois law.

To quote Patterson & Lindberg, The Nature of Copyright---A Law of
Users'
Rights, 1991: ``A common practice of the producers of computer
programs
has been to distribute them with shrink-wrapped `licenses.' These
self-proclaimed licenses purport to bind the purchaser (upon
opening the
package) to the copyright owner's terms---which invariably restrict
the
use the purchaser can make of the work. Such licenses are almost
surely
against public policy as unilateral attempts to override public law
with
private law in an adhesion contract. One can be sure that to the
extent
the provisions of such licenses preclude the fair use of the work,
they
have no legal effect, although their in terrorem effect may be
substantial. In our opinion, users would be well within their
rights to
ignore such unlawful terms and to comply instead with the law of
fair
use.''

---Dan

=================================================================
From: [e-mail]           Date: 09-17-93 (20:03)
Organization: PANIX Public Access Internet and Unix, NYC

In <a_rubin.748294676@dn66> [e-mail] (Arthur
Rubin) writes:

>In <27b5oo$[e-mail]> [e-mail] (Carl Oppedahl)
writes:

>>In <[e-mail]> [e-mail] (Jean-loup Gailly)
writes:

>>>Dan Bernstein <[e-mail]> wrote:

>>>> Yet the USPTO grants software patents which are entirely
anticipated by
>>>> _previous software patents_.

>>>Carl Oppedahl <[e-mail]> replied:

>>>> Your statement suggests this has happened at least twice.  Can
you give
>>>> an example or two of this?  For each example, it would be
helpful to
>>>> have the patent numbers involved.

>>>Two examples in the domain of data compression:

>>>- The LZW algorithm used in 'compress' is patented by IBM
(4,814,746)
>>>  and Unisys (4,558,302). The IBM patent application was first
filed
>>>  three weeks before that of Unisys. The IBM patent is more
general,
>>>  but its claim 7 is exactly LZW.

>...

>>I don't see where the statement by Jean-Loup Gailly provides
support for the
>>statement of Dan Bernstein.  Let's look again at what Mr.
Bernstein said.

>>Assertion (by Mr. Bernstein):  On at least two occasions, the
U.S. Patent
>>Office has granted a software patent that is anticipated by a
previous
>>software patent.

>>Now, to say that a patent is "anticipated" is to say that its
_claims_ are
>>anticipated -- that each of its claims appear in something in the
prior
>>art.  So, to be specific, if the patent has eighteen claims, then
everything
>>in each of the eighteen claims would have to appear in something
in the prior
>>art.

>Actually, it seems reasonable to me to take this down to the claim
level.
>If claim 7 of 4,814,746 is disclosed or claimed in 4,558,302, then
that
>_claim_ of 4,814,746 is invalid, which _should_ create a
presumption of
>invalidity of the the '746 patent.  (I'm not saying it does
legally create
>such a presumption or that the rest of the patent is necessarily
>invalidateable.)

You are absolutely right that if any one claim of '746 is disclosed
or
claimed in '302 then this is a serious weakness in '746.  Such a
thing,
if true, would gravely impair the owner of '746 in court if they
were
asserting claim 7 against someone.

It is also the case, however, that the pure legal consequence of
one
claim being invalid is just that -- that the claim is invalid.  But
the
claims that depend from that claim are not automatically invalid.
And
the other claims are not automatically invalid.  It happens all the
time
that a claim in a patent is asserted and successfully, even if some
other claim of the patent is invalid.  So for a patent to be
invalid
would have to mean that all the claims of the patent are invalid.
For a
patent to be anticipated would have to mean that all the claims are
anticipated.

--
Carl Oppedahl AA2KW  (patent lawyer)
1992 Commerce Street #309
Yorktown Heights, NY  10598-4412
voice 212-777-1330

=================================================================
FROM   :[e-mail]
SUBJECT:RE: A FAMOUS EXAMPLE OF A BAD SOFTWARE PATENT
Organization: IR

In article <277pfh$[e-mail]> [e-mail]
(John Jack
Repenning) writes:
> In article <[e-mail]>,
[e-mail] writes:
> > A patent monopoly is not an end in itself. It is a means to an
end.
> > Certainly the patentee gains from his patent---but that's not
the point
> > of the patent system!
> Central "point," no; but still possibly "means."

But you can't use the means as a justification for the law!

Consider a law whose goal is ``society gets X from individuals,''
and
which accomplishes this goal by means of ``society offers Y to any
individual who will contribute X.''

One may criticize such a law by pointing out that society is
failing to
get X. It's giving Y away and getting nothing. The law therefore
fails
to serve its purpose and should be scrapped.

Can you defend the law by pointing out ``It's giving Y, and
therefore
succeeding''? Of course not! If Y is good for society in and of
itself,
then it should not have been tied to X in the first place.

A patent monopoly is not good in and of itself. It violates
everyone's
_right_ to copy. Society tolerates this intrusion only in the hope
that it will speed the progress of science. As a corollary it must
tolerate this intrusion only _so far as_ it will speed the progress
of
science.

If (as you seem to argue) a patent monopoly _were_ good in and of
itself, then why would it be limited to 17 years?

---Dan

=================================================================
FROM   :[e-mail]
SUBJECT:RE: BAY AREA SOFTWARE PATENTS BY COMPANIES AND LAW FIRMS
Organization: IR

In article <rcrw90-170993124535@node_142cf.aieg.mot.com>
[e-mail]
(Mike Waters) writes:
> His point is exactly the same as I read it - neither patent
*claims* the
> same material.

There's an article by the Bell-Witten-Cleary crowd which states
outright
that MW1 is the same as LZW. This is _recognized fact_ among data
compression experts. 4,814,746 claims MW1 and MW2; 4,558,302 claims
LZW.

As usual, you display your ignorance of this fact by claiming that
it is
false---and, as usual, you have no idea what you're talking about.

> Let me see if I read your post in the correct order June 1, 1983
the patent
> was filed, *then* Victor Miller talked about it in 1984.  Doesn't
sound
> like anticipation to me!

Amazing. You seem to think that I'm saying Miller anticipated
4,814,746.
If you had even the _slightest_ knowledge of what you were talking
about, you would know that Miller was the co-inventor of 4,814,746.
And
if you understood what you were responding to---viz., I criticized
Carl
for getting 4,558,302 and 4,814,746 backwards---then you'd realize
that
nobody is claiming that 4,814,746 was anticipated!

Miller and Wegman at IBM invented what is now known as MW. They
filed
for a patent on June 1, 1983. They eventually received 4,814,746.
Miller
tells me that he in fact publicly disclosed MW in July 1983. (He
also
confirms that he and Wegman would have published MW whether or not
patent protection had been available.)

Welch at Sperry (now Unisys) invented what is now known as LZW. He
filed
for a patent on June 20, 1983. He eventually received 4,558,302.
Every
single claim in 4,558,302 is anticipated by
4,814,746---particularly
claim 7 of 4,814,746.

Draw a picture if you can't keep the facts straight.

---Dan

=================================================================
From: [e-mail]           Date: 09-17-93 (20:30)
Subj: SEF INTERNATIONAL SIG MON  Status: Public
-----------------------------------------------------------------
       Software Entrepreneurs' Forum International Software SIG

           Legal Considerations for International Software
           ===============================================

  For the September 20 meeting of the SEF International Software
  SIG, Susan Nycum, an attorney with Baker & McKenzie in Palo Alto,
  will discuss legal considerations for software distributed inter-
  nationally -- including practical advice on negotiating
agreements
  with foreign distributors and retaining as much as possible your
  intellectual property rights, such as copyright, patent, and
  trade mark, in foreign countries.

  Susan will present information NOT covered in the SIG's inter-
  national marketing presentations in June and July.

  Susan specializes in high-technology law and has many hardware
  and software clients who market internationally. She is a member
  of the SEF Advisory Board and a Director of the S.V. Global
  Trading Center.

  Date/Time:    Monday September 20, 7:00 p.m.

  Place:        The Center for Software Development
                111 West St. John, Suite 200
                (Corner of Market and St. John and San Pedro)
                San Jose CA 95113

  Cost:         Free for SEF members, *$10 for non-members*

  Information:  Leslie Pannell, 415/957-1300
                Charlie Pfefferkorn, 408/923-7570
                CSD, 408/289-8378

  SEF Info:     415/854-7219

  SEF, started in 1983, is a leading Silicon Valley-based
non-profit
  organization dedicated to software entrepreneurs, with over 900
  members. SEF informs and educates its members on all facets of
the
  software industry -- ranging from technical innovation to product
  development, marketing, and sales. The group offers entrepreneurs
a
  sense of community and is a valuable forum for exchanging ideas.

  SEF also sponsors 11 special interest groups, which meet once a
  month: Unix, Business Operations, Intelligent Systems,
International,
  Macintosh, Marketing, Multimedia, Networking, Pen Software,
Visual
  Basic, and Windows.

=================================================================
From: JOLYON SILVERSMITH           Date: 09-17-93 (21:23)
FROM   :[e-mail]
SUBJECT:COLLEGE CIVIL LIBERTIES CONFERENCE AT HARVARD UNIVERSITY
Organization: Harvard University Science Center


The Civil Liberties Union of Harvard (CLUH), the Harvard College
affiliate
of the American Civil Liberties Union, will be sponsoring a
conference for
college students on civil liberties on Saturday, November 6, 1993.
The
tenative workshop topics and speakers are:

1) The Organizational Aspects of College Civil Liberties Unions,
led by the
Civil Liberties Union of Harvard and John Roberts, Director of the
Civil
Liberties Union of Massachusetts

2) The Death Penalty

3) Free Speech and Hate Speech, led by Natasha Lisman of the law
firm of
Sugarman, Rogers, Bushak, and Cohen

4) Sexual Harrassment, led by Nancy Ryan, President of the CLUM
Board of
Directors and Chair of CLUM's Women's Rights Project

5) Electronic Privacy/E-Mail Rights, led by Ralph Clifford,
Attorney at Law

6) Campus Publications and Censorship, led by Marjorie Heins of the
ACLU
Arts Censorship Project

7) Civil Liberties and Drug Legalization, led by Jon Holmes of CLUM

8) Gay and Lesbian Rights

There will also be an endnote forum, tenatively titled Rights in
Conflict -
Women and Civil Liberties

The conference is open to all college students; other individuals
please
contact CLUH for more information. Registration for the conference
will be
primarily by mail, although some provision will be made for
same-day
registration. Check-in will take place on the evening of Friday,
November 5
and the morning of Saturday, November 6, with the first sessions
beginning
at 8AM and the last sessions ending at 6 PM on November 6. CLUH can
arrange for limited overnight accomodation on November 5. The fee
for
participants will be $5.

For more information by e-mail, contact [e-mail],
[e-mail], or [e-mail]. For
information by
mail, write to the Civil Liberties Union of Harvard, c/o Rob Yalen,
167
Quincy House Mail Center, Cambridge, MA 02167, or call (617)
493-3109.

Even if you can't come to the conference, we need your help in
publicizing
the conference. Please contact CLUH for more information. Please
feel free
to distribute this information, unaltered, to any groups or
individuals that
may find it of interest.

CLUH is also interested in contacting other student civil liberties
organizations or students interested in starting one on their
campus. The
ACLU can provide interested students with an organizing manual,
contacts at
other local universities, and other information and resorces.
Contact the
above address for more info.

--
Jolyon ("Jol")
Silversmith______________________________________________________
Mather House 188              Former Director:  Civil Liberties
Union of
Harvard
Cambridge, MA 02138           Circulation/Publicity Manager:
Lighthouse
Magazine
[e-mail]     Editor:  The  Mather  Messenger
(House
Newsletter)

=================================================================
From: [e-mail]         Date: 09-18-93 (03:54)
Organization: Colorado SuperNet, Inc.

"Edward C. Kwok" <[e-mail]> writes:

>In <[e-mail]>, [e-mail] (Paul Eggert)
wrote:
>No, no. Copyright protection is so limited that it may work for
things
>like spreadsheets, word processing programs, financial management
programs,
>but probably terribly insufficient when it comes to things such as
a
>hardware simulation program, or an option pricing model, or a bond
arbitrage
>program.  In very coarse terms, you need copying to sue on a
copyright.
>If the guy reverse engineer the real invention, and implemented
your
>invention in substantially dissimilar code, without patent
protection,
>you are out of luck.

Unless of course suit is filed in Mass. (Lotus v. various parties)
Note that under the current
federal statutes, you can sue a corporation in almost any state
in the Union. (Anywhere you could get long-arm jurisdiction, and
that usually means anywhere the corporatioever did business).

Bruce E. Hayden                 1720 South Bellaire Street
[e-mail]                   1100 Colorado Tower Bldg.
[phone]                      Denver, Colorado 80222

*************************************************************