ftp.ee.pdx.edu/2014.02.ftp.ee.pdx.edu.tar/ftp.ee.pdx.edu/pub/lpf/patent.events

Text File | 1992-11-03 | 19KB | 450 lines

BABYL OPTIONS:
Version: 5
Labels:
Note:   This is the header of an rmail file.
Note:   If you are seeing it in rmail,
Note:    it means the file has no messages in it.

1,,
Return-Path: <sco![e-mail]>
Received: from ucscc.UCSC.EDU by life.ai.mit.edu (4.0/AI-4.10) id AA03153; Tue, 31 Oct 89 18:08:12 EST
Received: by ucscc.UCSC.EDU (5.61/1.35)
    id AA27007; Tue, 31 Oct 89 15:08:08 -0800
From: sco![e-mail]
Message-Id: <[e-mail]>
To: wheaties.ai.mit.edu![e-mail]
Subject: turnabout is fair play
Date: Tue Oct 31 14:47:36 1989
Status: O

*** EOOH ***
Return-Path: <sco![e-mail]>
From: sco![e-mail]
To: wheaties.ai.mit.edu![e-mail]
Subject: turnabout is fair play
Date: Tue Oct 31 14:47:36 1989

Relay-Version: B 2.11 6/12/87; site scolex
Path: uunet!looking!newsbytes
From: [e-mail]
Newsgroups: clari.nb.apple
Subject: Zoomracks Author Sues Apple for HyperCard
Keywords: Bureau-SFO
Message-ID: <U4c2d.1c490@clarinet>
Date: Sun, 29 Oct 89 01:41:06 PST
Lines: 48
Approved: [e-mail]

LOS ALTOS, CALIFORNIA, U.S.A., 1989 OCT 27 (NB) -- The author of
Zoomracks, a popular shareware program for the PC and Atari ST,
has filed suit against Apple Computer, charging that its HyperCard
software violates a patent he obtained on screen displays.

Paul Heckel of Quickview Systems in Los Altos, California, created
Zoomracks in 1985. Available as shareware from such firms as PC-SIG,
Zoomracks allows portions of information from various fields to be
combined and displayed in an electronic version of file cards. Heckel
won a patent for the design -- patent number 4,486,857. Two years
later, the suit contends, the design showed up in HyperCard from Apple.

Two years of negotiations with Apple Computer, Newsbytes was told
by a reliable source, have failed to produce a settlement in this case,
prompting Heckel to go file the suit. Heckel's attorney,
Ronald Schutz of Robins, Kaplan, Miller & Ceresi, in Minneapolis,
Minnesota, is representing him on a contingency basis, since the
shareware firm is not financially able to take on the cost of a suit
against giant Apple alone.

Zoomracks was chosen Best Database by Compute! magazine in
January, 1989, for its "influential interface ahead of its time."

Author Heckel says, "We believe that patents are important to the
health of the software and computer industries. Software is what
makes computers useful, so software innovation is what creates
new computer markets. Without intellectual property rights,
software developers, especially small ones, have little incentive
to innovate."

Heckel waited until now to file the suit, despite the fact that HyperCard
was released more than two years ago, because there was hope that
Apple would settle the complaint out of court. The attempt to settle
extended a full month after the initial filing -- September 26, 1989 in
U.S. District Court in Minneapolis -- but the suit was only made public
now after the last-ditch effort to reach agreement with Apple
attorneys failed, Newsbytes has learned.

Anticipating trouble earlier this year, Quickview Systems sent letters
to HyperCard developers worldwide warning them of the potential
patent infringement and the on-going negotiations for a settlement.

Apple Computer, meanwhile, through spokeswoman Carleen LeVasseur,
will not comment much on the case, but says the suit is without merit.
"We don't believe that Hypercard has infringed on any valid claims."

(Wendy Woods/19891017/Press Contact: Ronald Schutz, atty, 612-
349-8500)



1,,
Return-Path: <[e-mail]>
Received: from saqqara.cis.ohio-state.edu by life.ai.mit.edu (4.0/AI-4.10) id AA14374; Fri, 10 Nov 89 20:49:53 EST
Received: by saqqara.cis.ohio-state.edu (5.61/4.891102)
    id AA08257; Fri, 10 Nov 89 20:49:39 -0500
Date: 10 Nov 89 20:28:13 EST
From: Mark D. Grover <[e-mail]>
To: <[e-mail]>
Subject: referral
Message-Id: <"891111012812 70671.577 DHJ67-4"@CompuServe.COM>

*** EOOH ***
Return-Path: <[e-mail]>
Date: 10 Nov 89 20:28:13 EST
From: Mark D. Grover <[e-mail]>
To: <[e-mail]>
Subject: referral

Hello:

I am a computer scientist (Ph.D. and eight years in industry)
considering a career change.  Knowing and respecting the work
of the FSF as I do, I would like to send along a resume to you.
I recently lost my access to my Unix host, so I no longer have
your US mailing address.  Could you send it along?

------
Second question:  I understand there is a group in Cambridge that
helps those of us looking for non-DoD jobs needing advanced skills.
Do you know how I might contact that group?

Thanks for your consideration...

- MDG -
[e-mail]



1, answered,,
Return-Path: <[e-mail]>
Received: from decwrl.dec.com by life.ai.mit.edu (4.0/AI-4.10) id AA14505; Fri, 10 Nov 89 21:00:26 EST
Received: by decwrl.dec.com; id AA01177; Fri, 10 Nov 89 17:58:16 -0800
Date: Fri, 10 Nov 89 17:58:15 -0800
Message-Id: <[e-mail]>
From: [e-mail] (J. Spencer Love, DTN 237-2751, SHR1-3/E29 (A26), 508-841-2751  10-Nov-1989 2057)
To: "[e-mail]"@decwrl.dec.com
Cc: [e-mail]
Subject: RE: Announcing the League for Programming Freedom

*** EOOH ***
Return-Path: <[e-mail]>
Date: Fri, 10 Nov 89 17:58:15 -0800
From: [e-mail] (J. Spencer Love, DTN 237-2751, SHR1-3/E29 (A26), 508-841-2751  10-Nov-1989 2057)
To: "[e-mail]"@decwrl.dec.com
Cc: [e-mail]
Subject: RE: Announcing the League for Programming Freedom

Dear Richard,

    I find myself in a peculiar position, which I believe will also apply
to others, so I am writing this note which you should feel free to forward
to any appropriate or relevant forum.  I don't know where to send it
myself.

    As a general thing, I agree with many of your arguments, and I oppose
the "look-and-feel" interpretations of the copyright laws.  I am also made
quite uncomfortable by software patents.  With this in mind, I expect that
I will send along $42 in the near future as a gesture of support.

    However, you might be interested to know that the $42 is part of
a bonus from my employer for applying for a software patent.  (The
algorithm in question would probably be used in microcode, but it is
particularly suited for implementation as a sequential process, not as
parallel hardware.)

    As long as software patents may be granted, doing the best possible job
for my employer requires that I assist in patenting my inventions.  The
alternative is that someone else patent the same idea; unless I publish the
idea and put it in the public domain which they will not pay me to do.

    I am not saying this because I feel guilty for my cleverness.  I think
it reasonable that good programmers are paid far better than the median
income, and I think that the patent and copyright laws serve a useful
purpose.  However, patents on algorithms, which are ideas, or user
interfaces, which (if they are good ones) are philosophies, open up a lot
of scary legal questions.  Patents on genetic information raise related
issues.

    The problem is that some current legal definitions are becoming
obsolete.  The way to address this problem is ultimately to enact new
legislation changing the rules of the game, not to unilaterally withdraw
from the game.

    There are two tasks here.  One task is educational and philosophical in
nature:  what concepts and rules are necessary?  Our goal is to promote the
general welfare by rewarding desirable behavior.  The task other is to
promote new legislation implementing these ideas.  Only this latter area is
lobbying; perhaps having two separate organizations would be useful.

    Do you have a well-defined program for new legislation?  How should the
copyright laws be changed?  The patent laws?  When we develop a universal
pantograph that can make anything given energy and raw materials, what
sorts of intellectual property rights will be appropriate then?  Will there
be a legal requirement to distinguish an original from a replica?  In
principle, it should be possible to construct a replica of the Mona Lisa
that would be impossible to distinguish from it by any known tests.
Eventually this will be cheap.

    I will continue to donate to the lobbying organization as long as their
platforms seem reasonable, but due to cash flow problems, LPF will have to
wait until the patent bonus is actually paid to me to get my first
contribution.

    I am sure from previous discussions with you that you have ideas on the
philosophical problems.  If you create a foundation to promote work in this
area I will make donations to it as well.  Chances are that those latter
donations would be tax-deductable.  Does an organization for this specific
purpose already exist?

                        -- Spencer


1,,
Return-Path: <[e-mail]>
Received: from sugar-bombs.ai.mit.edu by life.ai.mit.edu (4.0/AI-4.10) id AA17016; Sat, 11 Nov 89 00:18:27 EST
Received: from localhost by sugar-bombs.ai.mit.edu; Sat, 11 Nov 89 00:18:14 EST
Date: Sat, 11 Nov 89 00:18:14 EST
From: [e-mail]
Message-Id: <[e-mail]>
To: rms
Subject: Announcing the League for Programming Freedom

*** EOOH ***
Return-Path: <[e-mail]>
Date: Sat, 11 Nov 89 00:18:14 EST
From: [e-mail]
To: rms
Subject: Announcing the League for Programming Freedom


To: [e-mail]

         The alternative is that someone else patent the same
    idea;

I think this is not true.  Ask a lawyer (NOT your employer's lawyer)
about other alternatives.  It may well be that just writing it down
and getting it notarized woukd defeat any future patent.  Also, there
are "defensive patents" which are much cheaper and easier to get than
ordinary patents; all they do is defeat any future patents on the same
idea.

      unless I publish the idea and put it in the public domain which
    they will not pay me to do.

Supposing this were the only alternative, you could still do this even
if you were not paid.  It would be just a few days' work to write a
paper.  It doesn't need to be well-written.  How often will the need
arise?

    As long as software patents may be granted, doing the best
    possible job for my employer requires that I assist in patenting my
    inventions.

If you think software patents are bad for society, then you need not
feel any obligation to assist you employer in getting one.  Just be
honest about refusing and you have nothing to be ashamed of.

You may still be able to stop the process.

If your employer opened a plant in South Africa and wanted you to work
closely with that plant, would you feel obligated to cooperate as long as
no law was broken?

    legislation changing the rules of the game, not to unilaterally withdraw
    from the game.

We need legislation, but in the mean time we should not ourselves
engage in the practises we disapprove of.  You can refuse to play
dirty without withdrawing from the game.

    Do you have a well-defined program for new legislation?

For a start, just say that software is exempt from all patents.
That is simple.

                          When we develop a universal
    pantograph that can make anything given energy and raw materials, what
    sorts of intellectual property rights will be appropriate then?

I have ideas about this, but few people will agree with them.  Rght
now I want to build a coalition that many people will join.  That
means sticking to the area where we agree, and not injecting my other
wild ideas.

Also, if we look so far ahead, it raises the danger of searching for
utopia while Rome burns.

    LPF will have to
    wait until the patent bonus is actually paid to me to get my first
    contribution.

Refuse to go through with the patent, and I will pay your dues.

    I am sure from previous discussions with you that you have ideas on the
    philosophical problems.  If you create a foundation to promote work in this
    area I will make donations to it as well.

I don't have time; also, I'm more interested in action than in study.
I think some universities study these questions.

Idea: write a letter to the patent office explaining that you think
society would be better off if patents such as the one you are
being asked to apply for were not granted.  Send a copy of the letter to:

    Mike Remington
    Chief Counsel for Subcommittee on Intellectual Property
    2137 Rayburn Bldg
    Wash, DC 20515

I will help by reviewing and criticizing it.  I know someone else who
is good at this too.



1, answered,,
Return-Path: <[e-mail]>
Received: from decwrl.dec.com by life.ai.mit.edu (4.0/AI-4.10) id AA23641; Sat, 11 Nov 89 16:02:20 EST
Received: by decwrl.dec.com; id AA06996; Sat, 11 Nov 89 13:00:34 -0800
Date: Sat, 11 Nov 89 13:00:32 -0800
Message-Id: <[e-mail]>
From: [e-mail] (J. Spencer Love  11-Nov-1989 1559)
To: "[e-mail]"@decwrl.dec.com
Cc: [e-mail]
Subject: RE: patents

*** EOOH ***
Return-Path: <[e-mail]>
Date: Sat, 11 Nov 89 13:00:32 -0800
From: [e-mail] (J. Spencer Love  11-Nov-1989 1559)
To: "[e-mail]"@decwrl.dec.com
Cc: [e-mail]
Subject: RE: patents

Sorry about the interaction of our mailers.  This is not an internet mailer
by any stretch of the term, and my (rather long) personal name field is
clearly causing your mailer trouble.

They do get here, you know, even though the headers also list a perfectly
bogus address.  In the future, I'll try to remember to delete my personal
name field which contains commas when sending to you.  On VMS, I don't have
many options, so I don't plan to eliminate the commas, but I'll try
changing them to semicolons.

I would rather see a moratorium on the enforcement of software patents
while we (society) work out the definitions than simply declare all
invalid.  At the end of the moratorium, a definition would be published
(law passed) that would render the majority of software patents
unenforceable, but they wouldn't actually be overturned unless challenged
(there should be a streamlined form of overturning them to reduce their use
for intimidation, or possibly a penalty for unsuccessfully defending one).
While the moratorium was in effect, new software patents would continute to
be granted under the old rules, but it is likely the number of applications
would drop sharply.

At the beginning of the moratorium, we might impose a set of rules that
would eliminate (say) 75% of the patents that we expected would be
eventually invalid, but fewer than 1 or 2% of patents that would eventually
be upheld.  Then we can go to work on the grey area.

I am concerned that an effort which you describe as simply a concatenation
of general purpose building blocks might require hundreds of man-years,
significant new art and tens of millions of dollars to develop.  I suspect
there will be a middle ground.  Investors will demand some protection
before undertaking such projects (they may not get it), and we may end up
fine-tuning the copyright laws as well.

There's an outline for an ambitious legislative program.  Perhaps more
likely to occur than a constitutional convention, but possibly easier to
sell than an outright repeal.  Too complex?  Probably.

                        -- Spencer


1,,
Return-Path: <[e-mail]>
Received: from aeneas.MIT.EDU by life.ai.mit.edu (4.1/AI-4.10) id AA05325; Mon, 23 Apr 90 10:52:14 EDT
Received: from cs.ucl.ac.uk by aeneas.MIT.EDU (5.61/4.7) id AA14852; Mon, 23 Apr 90 10:52:01 -0400
Message-Id: <[e-mail]>
To: [e-mail]
Subject: anyone got an interactive diff/patch package ?
Date: Mon, 23 Apr 90 15:31:57 BST
From: [e-mail]
Sender: [e-mail]
Source-Info:  capricorn.cs.ucl.ac.uk

*** EOOH ***
Return-Path: <[e-mail]>
To: [e-mail]
Subject: anyone got an interactive diff/patch package ?
Date: Mon, 23 Apr 90 15:31:57 BST
From: [e-mail]
Sender: [e-mail]
Source-Info:  capricorn.cs.ucl.ac.uk



>>    Date: 17 Apr 90 01:21:09 GMT
>>    From: [e-mail] (Mike Hoegeman)
>>
>>    does anyone out there have an interactive diff/patch package that runs
>>    under emacs ?  what i need is something that will show me two versions
>>    of a file in two windows and let me interactively merge the two version
>>    into one.
>>
>> United States patent number 4,807,182 "Apparatus and Method for
>> Comparing Data Groups" dated Feb 21, 1989 appears to restrict anyone
>> from implementing, using, or distributing such a program anywhere
>> within the United States of America without the express permission of
>> Advanced Software of Sunnyvale, California.
>>
>> Hard as it may be to believe, this patent was indeed granted last year
>> for comparing text blocks by comparing hash codes and for displaying
>> the differing sections in two windows on one CRT ("or other suitable
>> device".)  The "inventor" is listed as being a Cary L. Queen.
>>
>> This letter, of course, should not be taken as an encouragement by me
>> to anyone who would perform any act which would infringe a software
>> patent legally granted under the laws and Constitution of the United
>> States of America.

Please tell me this is a joke.

If it isnt does this mean
1) it isnt valid in Europe
2) if 3 windows or not using hash codes were used the patent wouldnt
   apply.
I thought the giving of a patent was only given after extensive
search for its newnewss and evidence of its worth as a patent.
This harly seems to be patent material.

Moreover, does this mean any of us can go around patenting any silly
algorithms we come up with, and stopping others using them.
Will we have cases going to court where a patent holder can stop
someone releasing/selling a piece of software because they suspect it
may contain an algorithm which they have patented, and stopping the
livlihood of the company whilst someone proves or disproves the case.

What constitutes well known/non-patentable computer science and what
doesnt?  Can I patent a C compiler or a sort algorithm
and start getting royalties from people who have been writing them for years?

This has to be an example of the law in one of its crudest forms.
The law protects the person that got a patent first not the person
whose intellect did the creation.

Yours with disturbed hilarity
Stuart

Answers on a postcard.....