ftp.ee.pdx.edu/2014.02.ftp.ee.pdx.edu.tar/ftp.ee.pdx.edu/pub/lpf/pf3.emailissue

Text File | 1992-11-03 | 24KB | 525 lines

         _______________________________________________________
         |                                                     |
         |       March 1992  -==-  Volume I  Number 3          |
         |                                                     |
         |       PROGRAMMING FREEDOM  -  online edition        |
         |              [e-mail]                 |
         |                                                     |
         |           The Electronic Newsletter of              |
         |        The League for Programming Freedom           |
         | 1 Kendall Sq #143, POBox #9171, Cambridge MA 02139  |
         |  Phone: [phone] (voicemail only-leave your   |
         |address or phone number, and we'll answer your query)|
         |  Editor: Spike R. MacPhee ([e-mail])  |
         |     Reproduction of Programming Freedom via all     |
         |            electronic media is encouraged.          |
         |     To reproduce a signed article individually,     |
         |       please contact the author for permission.     |
         |_____________________________________________________|

          <><><><><> TABLE OF CONTENTS <><><><><>

           John von Neumann Opposed Patents
       LPF publicity: Cons, media mentions, & volunteer efforts
   San Jose Mercury News Wed Feb 12, 1992: Apple puts price on suit
  Microsoft Files Dismissal Motions - Analysis by Charles B. Kramer
         LPF .signature publicity increasing
        On the road with rms - latest West Coast trip
     Mail: How can I find out when LPF meetings are going
           to be held? and a reply by Michael Ernst
              LPF at SD 92 - rms
    Who's News: Judge Walker Adds to Drama Of Apple Suit - DELETED
         LPF email lists - what they are for
           Mail: An opinion against direct mailing
      LPF Boutique: Materials Available from the League

                  --==--

           John von Neumann Opposed Patents
            ********************************

The biography, `John von Neumann and the Origins of Modern Computing'
(by William Asprey, MIT Press, 1990, pp.  41-45), describes a patent
dispute in 1946-47 that Von Neumann had with Eckert and Mauchly over
the EDVAC.  Von Neumann had been a consultant to the EDVAC project and
had contributed to many of the fundamental inventions there.  In 1946,
Eckert and Mauchly attempted to patent much of the EDVAC technology,
including that which von Neumann claimed he had invented.

The fight ended when a draft report on EDVAC that von Neumann had
written in 1945 was held to be a prior publication.  Thus, all of the
inventions in question became part of the public domain.

One result of this dispute was that von Neumann changed the patent
policy for his computer project at the Institute for Advanced Studies.
The original plan was to have patents assigned to individual
engineers.  Instead, all ideas were placed in the public domain.

Von Neumann said "This meant, of course, that the situation had taken
a turn which is very favorable for us, since we are hardly interested
in exclusive patents, but rather in seeing that anything that we
contributed to the subject ... remains as accessible as possible to
the general public."

                --==--

 <><><>LPF publicity: Cons, media mentions, & volunteer efforts<><><>

Send in any LPF mentions or volunteer efforts and we'll list it.

Nov 91:  Unix User reprinted "Against Software Patents"

Jan - Feb: J. Eric Townsend of U. of Houston, Texas, [e-mail], asked
for LPF tshirts to sell locally and sold over a dozen, counting the
three people who emailed and then wrote us as a result of his posts to
Texas bulletin boards.  He has a stock of handouts, stickers and a few
buttons that he can give out in the local area.

Feb 23-8: SD 92 conf in Santa Clara - we again took a booth (see
 article by rms).

Mar 16: National Law Journal - article on rms & Feb 29 Computer Law
Symposium at UCal Hastings College of Law.

Mar 28-9: Boston Computer Society Macintosh Megameeting - LPF table

Spring 92: (Vol 12 #1) EurOpen: Forum for Open Systems News Letter ran
"Against Software Patents"

                --==--

 <>San Jose Mercury News Wed Feb 12, 1992: Apple Puts Price on Suit<>

Nearly four years after it sued Microsoft Corp. for copyright
infringement, Apple Computer finally put a whopping $4.4 billion price
tag on the damages it alleges it suffered at the hands of Microsoft's
Windows program.

The enormous sum has no precedent in copyright law and few equals in
any type of civil litigation in the United States.  It is nearly twice
Microsoft's #2.4 billion in revenues for all of 1991 and some 70
percent of Apple's $6.3 billion revenues for the same year.  The
figure represents almost half the value of company Chairman William H.
Gates' $7.35 billion stake in Microsoft.

The figure is contained in a document filed by Apple in U.S. District
Court in San Francisco on Feb. 1 but sealed until Tuesday, when the
company agreed to allow Microsoft to make part of it public.  It is
the latest in a tortuous series of legal maneuvers since Apple sued
Microsoft and Hewlett-Packard Co. in 1988, alleging that Microsoft had
copied the "look and feel" of the Macintosh computer's user interface
in its Windows program.  H-P is involved because the New Wave user
interface is based largely on Windows.

The trial is expected to start this summer.

According to a statement by Microsoft, the amount comprises slightly
more than $3 billion Apple claims it suffered in reduced unit sales
and depressed selling prices, and $1.4 billion in gross revenues it
claims Microsoft realized selling Windows and related applications
programs.

The two companies disagree, however, on what the total figure means.
Apple spokeswoman Barbara Krause said the sum is not Apple's actual
damages claim but only the estimate of one expert witness, Robert E.
Hall of the Hoover Institution at Stanford University.  "We have not
said what the damages will be," she said.

But Microsoft contends it is Apple's "statement of damages," said
William H.  Neukom, Microsoft's vice president of law and corporate
affairs, who described the figure as "unsupportable and speculative."

Attorneys and analysts say the sum is very likely legal posturing, and
both sides agree the figure Apple actually presents to the jury at the
start of the trial could be different.  Even if it is not, observers
agree that the $4.4 billion is unlikely to be close to what Apple
might be awarded should it win the case.

"There will be no settlement at or near those figures," said Dan
Kaufman, an intellectual-property attorney with Brobeck, Phleger &
Harrison in Palo Alto.  "If they ask for a number like that, they will
have to fight to the death."

The largest judgement in a similar case, involving a patent dispute
over instant photography between Polaroid and Eastman Kodak, amounted
to only $873 million -- nearly half of that interest accrued during
the 14 years the case dragged through the courts.  Only a few
class-action lawsuits involving thousands of victims have ended up
with multibillion-dollar judgements, Kaufman said.

Throwing such a figure on the table "makes it difficult to see them
settling this for cash," said Doug Kass, a Dataquest Inc. analyst.

Both Apple and Microsoft say they have no current intention of
settling the case.

[The Mercury News lets non-profit corporations reprint their articles,
and even allows electronic distribution.]

Addendum: In March, Microsoft said that Apple had increased the
damage claim in the lawsuit from $4.37 billion to $5.55 billion.

                --==--

<>Microsoft Files Dismissal Motions - Analysis by Charles B. Kramer<>

Microsoft has filed motions seeking to dismiss Apple's claims in their
user-interface copyright infringement case.  At issue is principally
whether Microsoft's Windows copies a certain 10 "screen elements" from
Apple's Macintosh GUI, and if so, whether the copying constitutes
copyright infringement.  The 10 elements are all that remain out of a
much greater number of "similarities in particular features" that
Apple earlier asserted were wrongfully copied by Microsoft.

Taken together, Microsoft's motions ask for dismissal with respect to
the 10 screen elements on three alternative and largely overlapping
grounds.  The grounds, in effect, are:

[1]     THE SCREEN ELEMENTS ARE ALREADY LICENSED TO MICROSOFT
        UNDER THE 1985 AGREEMENT THAT RESOLVED APPLE'S CLAIM THAT
        WINDOWS VER. 1.0 COPIED THE MACINTOSH GUI

The 1985 Agreement has come to haunt Microsoft, because in it
Microsoft got a license to the Mac GUI, but also "acknowledged" that
Windows Ver. 1.0 derives from the GUI in a copyright sense.

[2]     THE SCREEN ELEMENTS CANNOT BE PROTECTED BY COPYRIGHT AS A
        MATTER OF LAW.

In furtherance of this ground, Microsoft continues to assert, among
other things, that the elements are not protected by copyright because
they are merely the "functional" aspects of Apple's user interface,
and are not "artistic" expression.  Copyright law protects artistic
expression, not expression that serves a functional purpose.

[3]     THE SCREEN ELEMENTS WERE NOT ORIGINATED BY APPLE.

The status of this argument is the most unclear of the three.  In
August, the Judge overseeing the case ruled that if Apple had copied
expressive elements of the Macintosh GUI "directly... from
pre-existing works", then Apple "has no right to preclude others from
using those same 'unoriginal' elements".  But the Judge also ruled
that Apple's GUI could be found original if the preexisting features
it uses are "different" or are combined in an "innovative way".  The
Judge also mentioned that a certain law review article "might well
provide a sound basis" for deciding the case.

The law review article takes the position that copyright protection
should be a function of how much financial investment has been put
into a work.  On March 25, 1992, the Wall Street Journal reported that
Jerome Reichman, a copyright expert, stated that application of the
theory to the Apple/Microsoft case is "just wild" and "really off the
wall".  Perhaps Mr. Reichman is thinking of a recent Supreme Court
decision that emphatically stated (although not in a user interface
context) that mere labor and effort are *not* substitutes for the
originality that copyrights protect.

>From the League's point of view, only dismissal on ground [2] would
be a clear victory with the best chance of correctly directing the
copyright/user interface debate.  Unfortunately, Microsoft is unlikely
to win dismissal on any of the 3 grounds, in which event the case will
likely be decided by a jury.

Charles B. Kramer -Attorney-
>From Internet [e-mail]

                --==--

        <><><>LPF .signature publicity increasing<><><>

Here's one example of a member who mentions LPF in his .sig, as a
growing percentage of members do.

    ...just to let you know.  I receive one request for information
    about the LPF every two or three weeks on average.  Not so bad.

Francois Pinard        ``Vivement GNU!''      [e-mail]
Consider joining the League for Programming Freedom. Email for details

And one person's request for LPF info as a result:

    Well, after seeing all these .signatures with your guys' name on
    it, I decided to find out what it was all about.

Last issue, I said that we were getting 2 or more .sig-generated
queries per week; now it's up to 4 or more per week.  We've increased
our size by one-third since the start of the year, from 450 to over
600.

Number of members who have joined or renewed within the last year:
617.                                     - srm -

                --==--

  <><><>On the road with rms - latest West Coast speaking trip<><><>

This February, Richard Stallman gave five speeches for the LPF in the
San Francisco area, including one of them at the Hastings College of
the Law.  The other talks were at Stanford, Berkeley, and two CPSR
chapters.

At some of these talks he ran into some opposition from a new group
called the "Abraham Lincoln Patent Holders' Association", which was
founded by Paul Heckel.  (That is the person who threatened to sue the
users of Hypercard in order to pressure Apple into paying him money.)

One of Heckel's associates, a lawyer named Higgins, spoke at Hastings.
The audience there seemed to believe Stallman more, but one attendee
said, "That's because they are lawyers and they are trained to find
the flaws in a fallacious argument.  If it were a less sophisticated
audience, many of them would believe Higgins because he is a lawyer."

At one talk, Heckel himself showed up, and proceeded to live up to his
name.  Stallman mentioned the fact that Heckel has admitted not
realizing that Hypercard might be considered to infringe Heckel's
patent, until being informed of this by his lawyer.  Heckel said, "I
was simply misinformed as to the scope of my protection."  Of course,
this only substantiated the point that Stallman was trying to make,
and pointing this out caused Heckel to sit down and keep quiet for the
rest of the talk.

Heckel came to Stallman's next talk also, but left three-quarters of
the way through without saying anything.  What does this mean?
The optimistic interpretation is that he was stymied.  The pessimistic
one is that he came to gather ammunition.

The remaining talk of the six was at the Critical Software Meeting -
an annual meeting of people involved in software development for the
DOD.  This talk seems to have had mixed success: several of the
attendees said they were stunned by what they heard; but they did not
vote to choose intellectual property as a topic for further work
during the meeting.

                --==--

<>Mail: "How can I find out when LPF meetings are going to be held?"<>

This question is becoming a FAQ (Frequently Asked Question).

I don't know of any meetings coming up; the LPF tends to be light on
face-to-face meetings.  We do have an annual meeting in Boston near
the end of each calendar year, and all members are notified weeks in
advance.  Adam Richter sometimes organizes meetings for members in the
Berkeley area.

Many of us do much of our interaction over the electronic nets, and
projects (such as writing articles, having t-shirts printed, educating
the public, etc.) tend to be initiated by one member, though others
often help out.  If you'd like to volunteer to do something, that's
terrific, as we can always use more.  If you can suggest a project
you'd be willing to do, all the better.

Members might want to organize meetings of the members in their area.
People interested in doing this should contact both Spike MacPhee,
[e-mail], and Adam Richter, [e-mail], to
get help and advice.
                     [e-mail] (Michael Ernst)

Michael maintains the LPF off-line print library of LPF, patent, and
copyright articles, and the on-line index to them.  See "League Papers
Online" in the Boutique section at the end of the issue.

                --==--

         <><><>LPF at SD 92 - Richard M. Stallman<><><>

In February, the LPF had a booth at the SD92 trade show in Santa
Clara, CA, just as we did a year ago.  This show is attended primarily
by software developers from the PC world.

The primary purpose of the booth was to inform more programmers of the
problems they face, and to recruit their support.  A secondary goal
was to raise money with buttons, t-shirts and mugs.

The booth was staffed by Peter Deutsch, Peter Hendrickson, Hans
Reiser, Adam Richter, and Richard Stallman.

We had considerable success toward the main goal.  We distributed
around 700 buttons and probably 1500 position paper booklets.  We
signed up 14 new members at the booth.

We didn't achieve the secondary goal; we spent around $2500 (including
the cost of the supplies) and made back only around $1500.  (It's
possible that additional people who met us there will join and reduce
the gap, but it will be hard to tell.)  At this point, it is not clear
whether we should consider this a cost-effective activity.

                --==--

  <><><> Who's News: Judge Walker Adds to Drama Of Apple Suit<><><>
   By Richard B. Schmitt, Staff Reporter of The Wall Street Journal
                WEDNESDAY, MARCH 25, 1992
     THE WALL STREET JOURNAL. (c) 1992 Dow Jones & Company, Inc.

[The Wall Street Journal asked for $77 royalties for us to run 800
copies of this two-page article in paper form only: they said it is
illegal to reproduce this article in electronic form for network,
email or database distribution, and would not give permission for
anyone to do so for any of their articles.  The LPF Board chose not to
distribute this issue in paper form only.  Check out this interesting
article about the trial judge at your local library.]

                --==--

        <><><>LPF email lists - what they are for<><><>

This moderated mailing list
        [e-mail]
 and its two sub-lists:
        [e-mail]
 and    [e-mail] should be used only
for members' requests for assistance in league projects, local or
nationally, or for announcements from LPF.

These lists are filtered by a moderator to:
       - insure this use;
       - minimize the number of messages;
       - remove items meant for the list's -request address;
       - forward items that should have been sent to another list.

There may be a delay of up to 3 days for your message to be sent on
L-act, so plan ahead for volunteer requests.

[e-mail] is for discussion of LPF directions and
is not moderated.

If you want to subscribe, change your eddress (email address), or be
removed from either list, please use:

        [e-mail]
or      [e-mail]


Michael I. Bushnell is stepping down after a year of being the ecom
(electronic communicator) for [e-mail], the LPF's
information eddress. We would like to thank him for the 2-3 hours each
week that he spent as a volunteer on our behalf answering queries.

                --==--

   <><><>Mail: an opinion against direct mailing - C. Jeffery<><><>

Reading your [Jan] online edition of PROGRAMMING FREEDOM I am reminded
of why I haven't renewed my League membership.  I believe in the
League and its objectives, but I will not support the use of direct
mail campaigns.  The easiest way to *not* support direct mail is to
not renew my membership.

99.9% of the direct mail I receive goes into the garbage can unopened.
I resent it, and I suspect others may feel the same way.  Did the
League really reach 4000 people?  I count 14 people, not 4000.  Direct
mail is also wasteful environmentally.

I am not offering a solution to the problem of delivering the league's
message where it is needed.  I wish I could.  But I am voicing an
opinion about direct mailing.  It has a worse effect on our society
than software patents.  The ends do not justify the means.

                                       Clinton Jeffery
                                       [e-mail]

Last year league-tactics got a half-dozen messages from members who
objected to direct mail for one reason or another.  This was Aubrey
Jaffer's reply to them:

    Direct Mail is the least intrusive form of advertising.  It takes
    less than a second to throw away a piece of mail.  Unlike a
    billboard or poster or television advertisement you don't have to
    look at it day after day.  For example, It took longer for me
    receive the first screen of your unsolicited message (at 1200
    baud) than it does for you to throw away mail.

    As for waste of paper and gas, We are sending out 4000 pieces
    compared to the billion of pieces a day the post office handles.
    Our mailing is made from recyclable materials (no windows in the
    envelopes).

If a large number of League members object to direct mailing then that
could be a reason to stop; but just a half-dozen doesn't seem like
enough reason to stop, given that the officers don't share the
sentiment.  At present, the Board is planning to debate the
feasibility of a 2nd experiment in direct mailing.  Make your pro or
con views known to us at [e-mail].

                --==--

   <><><> LPF Boutique: Materials Available from the League <><><>

     Send your order to the League address in the masthead.

                   Buttons
     We have reprinted the famous ``fanged apple'' buttons.  These
buttons show the symbol of Apple computer with an alien snake's body
and face.
     You can buy buttons by mail from the League, for $2 each, in
quantities of at least three.  We give out buttons at events, but ask
for a donation.
                   Stickers
     We also have stickers showing Liberty Empowering the Programmer,
with the League's name and address.
     You can order stickers by mail from the League at the price of $5
for 10 stickers; for larger orders, phone us to discuss a price.  We
hand them out free when it is convenient, such as at our events, but
since mailing packages to individuals costs money, we want to make it
an opportunity to raise funds.
     Post stickers at eye level and separated from other posted
articles, to make them easy to see.  The stickers are not made to
survive rain.
              Liberty Postcards
     We also have postcards showing Liberty Empowering the Programmer,
with the League's name and address.  Same terms as the stickers.

            Large Liberty Posters
     We have a few posters with the same image that is on the
stickers, approximately 2.5 ft by 1.5 ft.  We used such posters to
make signs for the protest rally.  If you need some, talk with the
League and we'll work out a deal.

                 Coffee Mugs
     Our coffee mugs have the Fanged Apple design in full color on one
side and ``League for Programming Freedom'' on the other.  They hold
twelve ounces and are microwave safe.  You can order a mug for $15,
nonmembers $17, plus $3.00 shipping and handling.  They are now in
stock.  Note the price increase.

                   T-Shirts
     Michael Ernst has produced t-shirts with Liberty and ``League for
Programming Freedom'' on the front and ``Innovate, Don't Litigate'' on
the back.  (The back slogan will change from time to time.)  You can
order shirts by mail from the League for $10, nonmembers $12, plus $2
for shipping and handling.  Available colors are yellow, blue and
peach; if you specify a color, we will assume you would rather have
the other color than no shirt.  If you want a chosen color or nothing,
say so explicitly.  Please specify the shirt size!  (M, L or XL.)
We are temporarily out of XL shirts, but are getting some back from a
member who had volunteered to sell some and sold a dozen.

           Position Papers and Memberships
     We will send anyone a copy of the League position papers.  If you
want other copies to hand out at an event, we'll send you as many as
you need.  Please discuss your plans with us.  One-year memberships
are $42 for professionals, $10.50 for students, and $21 for others.
The dues are $100 for an institution with up to three employees, $250
for an institution with four to nine employees, and $500 for an
institution with ten or more employees. For $5000, an institution can
be a sponsor rather than a member.  We have 10 inst. members, now.

             League Papers Online
You can retrieve LPF written materials by anonymous ftp from
prep.ai.mit.edu in the directory /pub/lpf.  These include the position
papers, membership form, handouts, friends of the court briefs, and
articles about the LPF's issues of concern.

            League Video Cassettes
We have video tapes of some of Richard Stallman's speeches for the
LPF.  If you'd like to give LPF speeches, we can send you copies of
these tapes to give you an example to learn from.  If you'd like
copies for another purpose, we can send them for $20 each. <><><>

       <><><> End of March 1992 Programming Freedom <><><>