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: 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!seanf@ucscc.ucsc.edu Message-Id: <8910312308.AA27007@ucscc.UCSC.EDU> To: wheaties.ai.mit.edu!rms@ucscc.ucsc.edu Subject: turnabout is fair play Date: Tue Oct 31 14:47:36 1989 Status: O *** EOOH *** Return-Path: From: sco!seanf@ucscc.ucsc.edu To: wheaties.ai.mit.edu!rms@ucscc.ucsc.edu 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: newsbytes@clarinet.com Newsgroups: clari.nb.apple Subject: Zoomracks Author Sues Apple for HyperCard Keywords: Bureau-SFO Message-ID: Date: Sun, 29 Oct 89 01:41:06 PST Lines: 48 Approved: cn@clarinet.com 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: <70671.577@compuserve.com> 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 <70671.577@compuserve.com> To: Subject: referral Message-Id: <"891111012812 70671.577 DHJ67-4"@CompuServe.COM> *** EOOH *** Return-Path: <70671.577@compuserve.com> Date: 10 Nov 89 20:28:13 EST From: Mark D. Grover <70671.577@compuserve.com> To: 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 - 70671.577@compuserve.com  1, answered,, Return-Path: 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: <8911110158.AA01177@decwrl.dec.com> From: jslove@starch.enet.dec.com (J. Spencer Love, DTN 237-2751, SHR1-3/E29 (A26), 508-841-2751 10-Nov-1989 2057) To: "rms@ai.mit.edu"@decwrl.dec.com Cc: JSLOVE@decwrl.dec.com Subject: RE: Announcing the League for Programming Freedom *** EOOH *** Return-Path: Date: Fri, 10 Nov 89 17:58:15 -0800 From: jslove@starch.enet.dec.com (J. Spencer Love, DTN 237-2751, SHR1-3/E29 (A26), 508-841-2751 10-Nov-1989 2057) To: "rms@ai.mit.edu"@decwrl.dec.com Cc: JSLOVE@decwrl.dec.com 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: 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: rms@ai.mit.edu Message-Id: <8911110518.AA00531@sugar-bombs.ai.mit.edu> To: rms Subject: Announcing the League for Programming Freedom *** EOOH *** Return-Path: Date: Sat, 11 Nov 89 00:18:14 EST From: rms@ai.mit.edu To: rms Subject: Announcing the League for Programming Freedom To: jslove@starch.enet.dec.com 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: 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: <8911112100.AA06996@decwrl.dec.com> From: jslove@starch.enet.dec.com (J. Spencer Love 11-Nov-1989 1559) To: "rms@ai.mit.edu"@decwrl.dec.com Cc: JSLOVE@decwrl.dec.com Subject: RE: patents *** EOOH *** Return-Path: Date: Sat, 11 Nov 89 13:00:32 -0800 From: jslove@starch.enet.dec.com (J. Spencer Love 11-Nov-1989 1559) To: "rms@ai.mit.edu"@decwrl.dec.com Cc: JSLOVE@decwrl.dec.com 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: 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: <9004231452.AA14852@aeneas.MIT.EDU> To: info-gnu-emacs@prep.ai.mit.edu Subject: anyone got an interactive diff/patch package ? Date: Mon, 23 Apr 90 15:31:57 BST From: S.Clayman@cs.ucl.ac.uk Sender: S.Clayman@cs.ucl.ac.uk Source-Info: capricorn.cs.ucl.ac.uk *** EOOH *** Return-Path: To: info-gnu-emacs@prep.ai.mit.edu Subject: anyone got an interactive diff/patch package ? Date: Mon, 23 Apr 90 15:31:57 BST From: S.Clayman@cs.ucl.ac.uk Sender: S.Clayman@cs.ucl.ac.uk Source-Info: capricorn.cs.ucl.ac.uk >> Date: 17 Apr 90 01:21:09 GMT >> From: mh@awds26.imsd.contel.com (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.....