INDEX OF LPF MATERIALS You can ftp this file from mintaka.lcs.mit.edu:/mitlpf/ai/index. The original is /home/fsf/rms/lpf/index on rice-chex.ai.mit.edu. Michael Ernst maintained it until April 1992. It was last updated on April 12, 1992. (I often forget to update this line.) This file drawer (i.e., in NE43-427) contains the following folders: * copyright clippings * copyright articles * patent clippings * patent articles * patent disclosures * intellectual property articles * Pamela Samuelson * 1989 Lotus protest (clippings) * 1990 Lotus protest (clippings) * miscellaneous clippings (i.e., not copyright, patent, or protest) * OTA (Office of Technology Assessment) * letters to USPTO * court cases * Lotus v. Paperback * prior art * ethics and philosophy papers * European Community (and other foreign) * miscellaneous: foreign-language, non-printed media (photos, tape recordings) * proceedings on software protection * tangentially related items "Clippings" report on the news, for instance, about a protest or the formation of the League, or recent suits that have been filed or settled. "Articles" are more indepth; they usually appear in magazines and explicate issues or argue positions. "Intellectual property articles" are often those which discuss both copyright and patents. "Prior art" includes possible prior art for challenging patents "Letters to USPTO" are in regard to the "Request for Comments for the Advisory Commission on Patent Law Reform" The patent disclosures and some of the other folders are in order; please try to keep them that way. Additional clippings and articles are welcome. Please either file them in the appropriate file and update this file, or place them in the "New articles" folder to be filed by someone else; this will help keep this index up to date. References to materials we don't have appear at the end of this file. A list of patents is in patent-list; an index of the items in look-and-feel.events is in laf-events-index. =========================================================================== COPYRIGHT CLIPPINGS =================== MIT software developers field "freedom" campaign: Apple, Lotus "look-and- feel" suits targeted in ad by Jane Fitz Simon The Boston Globe, April 24, 1989, p 25-26 Criticism builds over impact of look-and-feel litigation by Michael Alexander ComputerWorld, May 1, 1989 Look but don't touch: software companies battle over intellectual property rights by E.C. Scientific American, Sept. 1989, p 101 Xerox vs. Apple: standard `dashboard' is as issue by John Markoff The New York Times, Wednesday, Dec. 20, 1989 Should developers be allowed to protect their work? (Forum followup) BCS Update, September 1989, p 13 "Look and feel" approach instrumental in finding of infringement of software copyright by Joseph S. Iandiorio The Reflector, p 4 Apple antes up to settle HyperCard copyright violation: customers off legal hook most did not know they were on by Tom Quinlan MIS Week, V11,#1,Jan 1, 1990 Legal constraints on sharing ideas: some scientists feel caught between the scientific processand the legal system (the executive computer) by Peter H. Lewis New York Times, Sunday, May 7, 1989, p 10 Lotus triumphs in look and feel suit InfoWorld, July 2, 1990, pp 1ff Lotus scores copyright win By Nell Margolis Computerworld, July 2, 1990, pp 1ff Kapor on copyright Information Center, May, 1990, pp 7-8 Chasing copyrights on the legal carousel (MacInTouch) by Ric Ford and Rick LePage MacWeek Software rulings pique "genius" by Wendy Hower Boston Business Journal, July 30, 1990, p 6 Mostly sympathetic article Kapor opposes extending copyright protection to ideas by Harry F. Rosenthal, Associated Press The Boston Globe, Thursday, March 8, 1990, p. 51 Lotus trial may clarify copyrights by Milliam M. Bulkeley The Wall Street Journal, p. B1 Judge rules in Apple's favor in Xerox suit (Late News) MacWEEK, V4 #12, 27 March 1990, p. 1 Suits have had surprisingly little effect on software industry (state of the industry) by Rachel Parker October 9, 1989 Software copyright rules increasingly favor large-scale firms, p. 1 Copyright protection can be less than absolute: try patents, p. 3 Patenting computer screen displays, p. 6 Gaston & Snow Enterprise Advisor, V1, January 1989 More of "how to take advantage of the current laws" than anything else. Copyrights, copywrongs? After Lotus' court victory, debate rages over software copyrights by Kenan Woods Fax, July 31, 1990, V4 #31, pp 1-3 The Lotus case: Judge rules user interface is protected by copyright by Andy Reinhardt Byte, September 1990, pp 19-20 Limits Placed on Software Duplication by Laurence Hooper and Vindu P. Goel Wall Street Journal, Sep 11, 1990, p B7 Clipping about Allen-Myland's right to duplicate IBM microcode that it had bought, instead of having to buy new copies. Software copyright: Solomon wanted The Economist, September 22, 1990 Lotus litigation sparks corporate resentment: suit viewed as a way to gain market share (Reaction) by Barbara Darrow InfoWorld, September 3, 1990, p 46 Apple [and] the courts wonder: who owns the desktop metaphor? (State of the industry) by Rachel Parker InfoWorld, September 3, 1990, p 48 Apple states a bit more precisely what it claims it owns: not the graphical uers interface or even the desktop metaphor, but the office implementation of the desktop metaphor (eg file folders, garbage can). Programming freedom is new group's objective (On computers) by Sheldon L. Richman Washington Times, November 21, 1990 Strongly pro-LPF. The Death of code: Copyrighting code [sic] could signify the end of innovation within our industry by John C. Dvorak PC Magazine, November 13, 1990, p 81 Strongly pro-LPF. Lotus litigation sparks corporate resentment: Suit viewed as a way to gain market share (Reaction) by Barbara Darrow Infoworld, September 3, 1990, p 46 Lotus wins $500,000 in copyright settlement by Lawrence Edelman Boston Globe, pp 95-96 Settlement prevents Lotus-Paperback case from going to appeals court Lotus action not in public interest (Letters to the computing editor) by David G. Hough San Jose Mercury News, Sunday, November 18, 1990, p 4F Ashton-Tate losts flagship software's copyright shield by G. Pascal Zachary and William M. Bulkeley The Wall Street Journal, Friday, December 14, 1990, p B1 Copyright on dBASE overturned on a technicality: the program was derived from one in the public domain. Startup claims legal Mac-clone chip set by Ron Wilson Electronic Engineering Times, January 18, 1991, p 10 key quote: ``After the Paperback Software decision, it's very difficult to throw anything into the clean room that isn't protected,'' [Stern] noted. To all ARISIA '91 attendees: by James S. Belfiore Editorial arguing that copyright holders should be forced to license their works for low or token sums to non-profit corporations. (Demands for big royalties are called "intellectual censorship".) Free for all: Richard Stallman is consumed by the fight to end copyrighting of software (Technology: On the docket) by G. Pascal Zachary The Wall Street Journal, Monday, May 20, 1991, pp R23-R24 More about FSF than LPF. Apple broadens attack in copyright lawsuit by Andrew Pollack New York Times, Friday, May 24, 1991, p D2 Apple requests court to rescind its 1985 liscensing agreement with Microsoft. Reference on computer software protection: current status Secretary, Copyright Law Review Committee July 13, 1990 and July 30, 1990 Call for comments. Mixed legal signals for software reverse engineering by Robert Melford IEEE Software, May 1991, p 106 First sentence: Although the US Supreme Court ruled in 1974 that reverse engineering is a "fair and honest" means to uncover ideas, recent decisions in lower cours have penalized software firms for reverse-engineering a competitor's program... Electronic age raises copyright issues CCC Report, Fall/winter 1989, p 2 "Precedents governing the observation and compliance of copyright in the electronic environment are unclear." Copyrighting urged for federal software (News) by Brian Robinson Electronic Engineering Times, July 29, 1991, p 24 First paragraph: "A top government official has come out in support of permitting federally produced software to be copyrighted, putting the administration squarely behind moves to ease transfer of that software to industry. Do we need design copyright? by Robert A. Parker ID, May/June 1991, pp 55-57 Guarding Pacific Rim intellectual property rights is focus of conference (Conferences) by Robert J. Melford [some IEEE journal?], April 1991, pp 93-94 Judge says copyright protects imaginings by Roger Cohen The New York Times, Thursday, August 15, 1991, pp B1, B3 A fictional play about an affair between Thomas Jefferson and slave Sally Hemings, inspired by a historical account, is found to infringe on the copyright of a book about the same topic inspired by the same historical account. Jonathan Rosenoer looks at the legal side by Jonathan Rosenoer The Active Window, February, 1992, pp 22-23 The Paperback Software ruling is coming under increasing criticism. China agrees on copyright by Rian Robinson and Rick Boyd-Merritt Electronic Engineering Times, January 20, 1992, #676, p 2 "China is now committed to treatign computer programs as literary works, protecting their copyright for 50 years under the Berne Convention... IT has also agreed to let copyright owners of computer programs and sound recordings control rentals of their works." $2,000,000 judgment against software infringer by Joseph S. Iandiorio Decisions & Developments, V12 #5, September 1991 "the jury found [Clipper CARS] copied Mercer's CompMaster database structures"; also misappropriation of trade secret source code. Sugesting user commands does not consitute joint authorship of a computer program by Joseph S. Iandiorio Decisions & Developments, V12 #5, September 1991 Statisticians at odds over software ownership by Eliot Marshall Science, 10 January 1992, V255, pp 152-153 Teaser: A nasty fight has erupted over similarities -- and alleged errors -- in two software packages widely used by academics. Quotes: "Wilkinson ... claims tha tLwicki copied key features of SYSTAT's programs and put them into a competing product." "Usually, all that inventors can protect is the "look and feel" of a program as expressed on a computer screen." Seems like a fight over market share that has turned very ugly with some claims about copying functionality but mostly about ease of use and correctness. Software pirates pay "PR penalties" SPA News, August 1991, V8 #8, p 1 Damark International had to pay pentalties, and write an article describing the process of being sued, for piracy Copyright rethinking GUI policy by Brian Robinson Electronic Engineering Times, September 2, 1991, p 25 This article reproduced in Greater Boston SIGCHI, October 1991, p 3 The copyright office is rethinking its policy of excluding developers from registering data or algorithms depicting particular typefaces. It has recieved numerous applications for software used with typefaces, typefonts, and letter forms. Congress weighs copyright safeguards for software by W. Dale Nelson Associated Press Ruling may restrict Copyrights for software The New York Times 6/24/92 by John Markoff Borland See low damages over 1-2-3 Boston Globe pg 37 8/4/1992 by Ronald Rosenberg =========================================================================== COPYRIGHT ARTICLES ================== Xerox suit: big issues Electronic Engineering Times, Dec. 25, 1989, p 5 Looking at "look and feel" by Simson Garfinkel BCS Update, p 20 The role of copyright in the development of interactive video publishing and new computer software for personal use (Communications and society forum report) Report of an Aspen Institute Conference, Queenstown, Maryland, April 26- 28, 1988 by David Bollier Copyright protection for computer programs: is the sky falling? by Martin David Goldberg and John F. Burleigh AIPLA Quarterly Journal, V17, #3, 1989 Computer software and copyright protection: the "structure, sequence, and organization" and "look and feel" questions LaST Frontier Conference Report by Chisum, Dreyfuss, Goldstein, Gorman, Karjala, Kitch, Menell, Raskind, Reichman, Samuelson Arizona State University College of Law Center for the study of law, science, and technology June 1989 A strange merger of copyright and droit d'auteur: comments on the porpore European Community directive on software protection by Herman J. Woltring 10 April 1989 Special Issue: the EC Green Paper on copyright and the challenge to technology Computer Law & Practice V5#2, Nov/Dec 1988 Three Common Fallacies in the user interface copyright debate by Thomas M. S. Hemnes The Computer Lawyer, V7 #2, February 1990 Abstract: Both proponents and opponents of copyright protection for the "user interface" of software commonly assume the truth of the following three propositions: 1) Section 102(b) of the Copyright Act is an exception to the general rule that copying is is wrongful; 2) The difficulty and expense of creating an interface supports its copyrightability; and 3) The existence of multiple alternative interfaces implies that no one of them is an unprotected "idea." This paper will demonstrate that each of these propositions is a fallacy. Does form follow function? The idea/expression dichotomy in copyright protection of computer software by Peter G. Spivak Summary Statement of Mitchell D. Kapor Statement of Mitchell D. Kapor by Mitchell D. Kapor ? OTA advisory board? ? NAS strategic forum on intellectual property Litigation vs. innovation (Stop bit) by Mitch Kapor Byte, September 1990, pp 520 Reverse engineering software: is it safe? Technology Law Bulletin (Lucash, Gesmer & Updegrove), V4 #2, April 1990, p. 1 Very wishy-washy. Tales of the rich and creative by Vincent J. Canzoneri, Esquire and Diane T. Chin BCS Update, April 1989 Supremes to rich: creative wins! by Vincent J. Canzoneri, Esquire and Susan Barbieri Montgomery, Esquire BCS Update, January 1990 Taking the stand: the look-and-feel issue examined PC Magazine, May 26, 1987, pp 155-197 Series of articles: "PC Magazine steps out of character to analyze the look-and-feel issue." Seems mostly against look-and-feel protection Who's stealing America's ideas? (Law and Society) The Washington Post, Sunday, November 5, 1989 About copyright violations; doesn't bring up anything to think about. Setting the stage: learing from the past, pp 14-15 Setting the stage: Apple v. Franklin, pp 32-33 History of copyrights, photocopies from a book. The first 350 years, pp 14-17 Plagiarism reexamined, pp 74-75 History of copyrights, photocopies from a book. Using software: a guide to the ethical and legal use of software for members of the academic community EDUCOM and ADAPSO, 1987 Software Piracy: A Cybernetic Perspective by Michael E. Marotta The Pragmatist, April 1988, p 10 Radical viewpoint. Intellectual property is a null concept, restricting redistribution is immoral, etc. Against User Interface Copyright League for Programming Freedom Readme: the UniForum Canada newsletter V II #04, September 1990, p 8 This is the League position paper. Against User Interface Copyright League for Programming Freedom Prepared by Richard Stallman and Simson Garfinkel Communications of the ACM, November 1990, V33 #11, pp 15-18 This is the League position paper. The user interface: copyright? or a right to copy? by Thomas M. S. Hemnes, Esq. and Vincent J. Canzoneri, Esq. BCS Update, November 1990, pp 12-15 "It seems virtually certain that copyright protection for interfaces favors monopolization by the most dominant software companies." Mosaic Software memos by Arthur Hu Intellectual protection for user interfaces? (Viewpoint) by Ben Schneiderman Communications of the ACM, April 1991, V39 #4, pp 13-14 Argues that user interface copyright is in the public good. Protecting rights in user interface designs by Ben Schneiderman SIGCHI Bulletin, October 1990, V22 #2, pp 18-19 The usual arguments for user interface copyright. Letter to Senate Subcomitte on Patents, Trademarks, and Copyrights from R. Zider April 24, 1991 Excerpt: This letter is a vote to go slowly and proceed with caution. Protecting the "look and feel" of computer software (Comments) by John Pinheiro and Gerard Lacroix High Technology Law Journal, 1987, V1, pp 411-445 Argues that user interfaces shouldn't be copyrightable, and that the "plurality of expressions" test provides the best test for the computer industry. Federal intellectual property protection for computer software audiovisual look and feel: the Lanham, Copyright, and Patent Acts (Comment) by Gregory J. Wrenn High Technology Law Journal, V4, pp 279-329 Seems pro-user interface copyright. Argues that the best rationale is: protect all aspects of a work as long as competition is not "unduly hindered." Copyright protection for user interfaces in the 90's: of perilous journeys on the drooping shoulders of giants by William T. McGrath February 22, 1991 Echoes Clapes by arguing that copyright protection is entitled for the creative poetry-like process of writing software. SAFETY FIRST: between software protection and (re)liability by Herman J. Woltring Draft of January 27, 1991 Selected provisions of the copyright law of the United States pertaining to computer programs Compiled by David O. Carson Handed out at USENIX panel in Nashville, 6/91 Rights and wrongs of software by Dan Charles New Scientist, #1736, 29 September 1990, pp 44-48 Includes sidebar "A crusade for free software...and a new statue of liberty" on p 48 blurb: "Computer programs are valuable property but how much should their creators be rewarded? According to many experts, using laws to protect every software idea will inhibit the development of better products and prevent smaller firms from competing with the giants" Chilling effects and free competitive copying: The uncertain scope of software copying by D. C. Toedt Overview from a lawyer's point of view. Looks pretty well done. Why are we re-inventing the wheel? Arguments agains copyright protection for command-driven software interfaces by D. C. Toedt Overly informal; difficult to tell what is tongue-in-cheek and what isn't. In defense of copying by Selmer Bringjord Public Affairs Quarterly, January 1989, V3 #1, pp 1-9 A slippery-slope argument which claims that it should be permissible to copy rented movies, computer software, books, etc., on the grounds that someone might be able to remember it anyway and that would be morally equivalent to copying it, so copying should be as permissible as remembering the contents. Sega Dedision Challenges Legality of Disassembly Microprocessor Report (Unknown magazine) Pg. 16, May 27, 1992 by Bruce Koball, Motion West, Berkeley, CA Aritcle discussing Sega v. Accolade Software =========================================================================== PATENT CLIPPINGS ================ Financial Instruments Protected by Edmund L. Andrews The New York Times, Dec 30, 1989, p D1 Ruling on algorithms may help software developers NY Times News Service ??/10/89 Paint patent battle Computer Graphics World, Nov. 1989, p 15 on same page with: Competing font standards Computer Graphics World, Nov. 1989, p 15 About Adobe publishing specifications of PostScript language format fonts, so others will no longer be forced to license them from Adobe. Biotechnology News, many issues of 1988 Software industry in uproar over recent rush of patents by Lawrence M. Fisher New York Times, Friday, May 12, 1989, p 1 (dateline May 9) Protecting microbes and mathematics by Edmund L. Andrews The New York Times, Sunday, May 15, 1990, p. 12F Simplifying A Computing Procedure (Patents) by Edmund L. Andrews The New York Times, Saturday, August 4, 1990 A patent is granted to AT&T on a method, based on origami, of allocating processors to parts of a problem (say, an aerodynamic analysis). Inventor is Alan Huang. Investing in patents to fuel suits is curbed by Wade Lambert and Arthur S. Hayes The Wall Street Journal, Wednesday, May 30, 1990, p. B8 Refac suit against Lotus, Ashton-Tate, Borland, Microsoft, and two others thrown out because of champerty. Court strikes down basic patent for Gore-Tex by Arthur S. Hayes and Jeffrey A. Tannenbaum The Wall Street Journal, May 16, 1990, p. B2 Patents on equations: some see a danger by Edmund L. Andrews The New York Times, Wednesday, February 15, 1990, p D1 7 articles from Nexis library containing "Refac" and "patent" (July 27, 1990) Refac and patents (letter to the editor) by Eugene M. Lang, President, Refac New York Times, January 28, 1990 A "white knight" draws cries of "patent blackmail" by Edmund L. Andrews New York Times, January 14, 1990 Intellectual Property by Esther Dyson, editor and publisher of the newsletter Release 1.0 Forbes, September 18, 1989 Complacency about Apple's lawsuit may be dangerous; Up Front by William Zachmann PC Week, August 21, 1989 Reface lays claim to spreadsheet patent; will demand licensing fee of Lotus, others by Rachel Parker and Ed Scannell Infoworld, July 31, 1989 Giving it away is the best revenge by James Cook Forbes, April 21, 1986 Article on flashing colon patent by Kate Carlisle United Press International, February 24, 1984 On software patents by Alvy Ray Smith Byte, September 1990, pp 232 Software patents trouble computer industry by Simson L. Garfinkel Questions about originality at heart of software suits by Simson L. Garfinkel The Boston Sunday Globe, October 1, 1989, p A6 Free Software Now! (Education/Employment) by Rick Massimo Campus Calendar, Sept. 1990, p 12 (also cover illustration) Sympathetic to GNU project, focusses on patents The point of patents The Economist, September 15, 1990, pp 19-20 Tagline: As a way of encouraging innovation, they are becoming increasingly irrelevant. The voters oust a key congressman (Patents) by Edmund L. Andrews The New York Times, November 17, 1990 Kastenmeier, anti-design-patent head of House Judiciary subcommittee that handles patents, fails to win reelection Real time indicator improves CPU efficiency BNR Matrix, October 1990 Patent on "By inserting three instructions (set a bit, clear a bit, and jumb back to set a bit again) into the idle loop of a processor, you can determine whether the CPU is working or idling." EDS research fax on prior art for HyperCard Applications Patent nonsense, and what to do about it (Commentary) ParcPlace Newsletter, Winter 1990, V3 #3, p 8 Includes three-paragraph statement from ParcPlace Systems expressing support for LPF viewpoint. An open letter to fellow software developers Anonymous The end of Intel's monopoly? (Editorial) by Fred Lnaga Byte, January 1991, p 10 About reverse-engineering of the 386. Why TI and Hyatt are fighting: The patent suit is over money and history by Robert Bellinger Electronic Engineering Times, May 6, 1991, #640, pp 1, 57 Do patent laws need reforms? by Robert Bellinger Electronic Engineering Times, May 6, 1991, #640, pp 1, 57-58 Bellinger is pro-patent system. Gould looks back (Professional pipeline) by Robert Bellinger Electronic Engineering Times, May 6, 1991, #640, pp 1, 57 About Gordon Gould's fight to be acknowledged holder of four laser patents. International biotechnology law by Lloyd R. Day, David M. Madrid, and James R. Batchelder Upside, April 1991, pp 51-52 key quote: Patent law harmonization would convert America's race to invent into a race to file. Patent action on software by A.T.&T. by John Markoff The New York Times, pp D1,D5 AT&T sends out threatening letters (about backing store?) AT&T claims X Window patent rights (news) by Patricia J. Pane Infoworld, March 4, 1991, p 8 Inventors discover day in court to protect their patents, profits by Louis Rukeyser Rocky Mountain News, Tuesday, March 12, 1991, p 79 Discusses recent increase in patent infringement suits. AT&T asserts GUI patent Electronic Engineering Times 1991 Hayes wins modem patent suit Boardwatch, March 1991, pp 14-15 Request for comments for the advisory commission on patent law reform (notices) Patent and Trademark Office Federal Register, Thursday, May 16, 1991, V56 #95, pp 22702-22706 Advisory Commission on Patent Law Reform; selection of Advisory Commission members Patent and Trademark Office Federal Register, Thursday, March 7, 1991, V56 #45, p 9667 Letter from Donald E. Killen to Michael Kirk, USPTO, and Senators Lloyd Bentsen and Phil Gramm Supports minimal patent protection in WIPO negotiations Patents gain favor with software firms: Vendors slow to adopt old weapon (Business, News Analysis) InfoWorld, August 26, 1991 Quotes Bill Gates as saying that for defensive reasons (because of the obvious patents being granted) Microsoft must aggressively pursue software patents. Says Apple has 104 patents, IBM "hundreds", Microsoft 9, Borland has three pending. Chart says 6500 patents for electronic computers and data processing systems were applied for in 1990, up from 3200 in 1987. Code implementing the essence of three data compression algorithms; each is one page or less in length. by James A. Woods Flyer for Second Annual Institute on Patent Protection for Computer Software, Flyer for University of Wisconsin La Crosse Distinguished Lecture Series in Computer Science, October 14, 1991, Richard Stallman Software floods the patent office by Torsten Busse Infoworld, September 30, 1991, pp 39,42,44 Basically anti-patent overview of the software patent debate. Mostly lifted from position papers, etc. Contains technical errors like "back and store" for backing store, claims Lotus owns the natural order recalculation patent, etc. Book review: The patent paradox Review of _The patent system and innovative activity during the industrial revolution, 1750-1852_, by H.I. Dutton. by Steven Lubarr Science, Technology, and Human Values, Winter 1986, V11 #1, pp 90-94 Like the book reviewed, provides a summary of various arguments for and against patent protection and then discusses economic incentives for invention. MIT contests AT&T Patent: X Consortium says `backing store' was in use before AT&T patented it. by Mitch Wagner UNIX Today!, September 30, 1991, Patently obvious (Editorial) by Steve Weitzner Eletronic Engineering Times, July 29, 1991, p 25 Against obvious patents. Mostly content-free. Did Refac ever get its day in court? (Crosstalk (letters)) by James Constant Eletronic Engineering Times, July 29, 1991, p 25 States that most patent suits are settled by non-technical judges, and not on the merits of the case, either. Software patents stifle innovation (Crosstalk (letters)) by Dick Dunn Eletronic Engineering Times, July 29, 1991, p 25 Good, brief anti-patent letter. Facing off by Paul Raulerson UniReview, September 1991, pp 8-9 Says Unix has always had everything DOS or the Macintosh did, so patent battles and interface copyrights can have no effect on Unix users. [sic] Sony and others asking, Gilbert who? (Patents) by David E. Sanger New York Times, Saturday, February 1, 1992, pp 35-36 The patent office has rewritten history by crediting Gilbert Hyatt with the invention of the microprocessor; he is actively pursuing foreign electronics firms doing business in the US, but hasn't been as active in threatening domestic companies. AT&T's software patent is a stretch, says MIT by Wendy Hower Boston Business Journal, November 25, 1991, p 5 Software harder to patent? by Brian Robinson Eletronic Engineering Times, September 16, 1991, p 36 Lead: "A software industry association [ADAPSO] has warned that recent rejections of certain software patent claims could represent a narrowing of standards for patent protetion, which could affect U.S. developers' competitiveness worldwide." Digital audio heads for the pool by Barry Fox New Scientist, 30 November 1991, p 28 The electronics industry creates a patent pool for digital audio patents. Patent infringement lawsuit filed against Novell Corporation and Bank America Corporation (December 18, 1991) fax from John Browning of The Economist The press release description of the "invention" (patent 4,714,989) is the local area network; Novell is accused of selling distributed database software and Bank America of running it. Also includes a copy of the complaint for patent infringement. Stronger patents through the courts by Robert W. Harris Hich-Tech Progress, V4 #6, June 1991 Discusses the effect of the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit, which has been strongly pro-patent-holder. Patent commission appointed Hich-Tech Progress, V4 #3, March 1991 Briefly describes makeup of the Advisory Commission on Patent Law Reform. US, Korea in patent pact by Shin Kyung-Mi and Brian Robinson Electronic Engineering Times, January 20, 1992, pp 20,27 Apparently Korea toughened its intellectual property laws; the article talks more about joint development projects than the details of the agreement. Software harder to patent? by Brian Robinson Electronic Engineering Times, September 16, 1991, p 36 ADAPSO notes that standards for granting patents differ depending on whether the process is implemented in software or hardware. Patent protection may extend to software after all... by Curtis L. Harrington Mechanical Engineering, April 1992, p 75 Reports on two recent conflicting cases. Lawyers, Programmers Interface by Victoria Slind-Flor National Law Journal Jan-April 1992 Richard Stallman addresses computer law meeting. Japan patent 'theft' probed by Congress. by Brian Robinson Electronic Engineering September 23, 1991 Patent Licensing Bulletin Board bows Electronic Engineering September 9, 1991 Under Goverment briefs C&T suits raise patent issues by Ron Wilson Electric Engineering September 30, 1991 No patent on this family secret: IBM get the royal(ty) treatment Infoworld Rober X. Cringely =========================================================================== PATENT ARTICLES =============== The impact of software patents by Brian Kahin Educom Review, Winter 1989, pp 28-31 Correspondence Robert Kastenmeier, Chairman, Subcommittee on Courts, Intellectual Property, and the Administration of Justice, US House of Representatives Committee on the Judiciary (October 18, 1989) Jeffrey M. Samuels, Acting Commissioner or Patents and Trademarks (November 1, 1989) Patent law pp 7-35 portions of introduction to a book or overview journal article Computer Law Strategist, V8,#1, May 1990, p1, "Xerox fails in novel claims against Apple: too little substantiation, too late" The software patent crisis by Brian Kahin Technology Review, April, 1990, pp. 53-58 Keep your filthy hands off my hough transform! (Editor's comment) by Andrew C. Wilson ESD: The Electronic System Design Magazine, April 1989, p 11 Information property: some intellectual property aspects of the global information economy by Joel Reidenberg Information age, Jan 1988, v10 #1, pp 3-12 Abstract: Information-intensive products are challenging the traditional protection mechanisms for intellectual property. Information has become an international commodity, yet the existing legal framework remains territorially based. The national regimes, as illustrated by an examination of the US and French treatment of intellectual property, are poorly adapted for the needs of information protection. The traditional legal framework focuses on the tangible aspects of information-intensive products and gives insufficient attention to the intangible aspects of information content. The multicharacteristic quality of information and the need to address rights of disclosure and use lead to an examination of a value-added or services approach to intellectual property protection. ON the international level, the GATT might be able to provide a conceptual breakthrough for intellectual property rights. Has some info on overseas intellectual property law. Patent letter suits (Editorial) by Jonathan Erickson Dr. Dobb's Journal, March 1990, p 6 on same sheet of paper: Patented algorithms (Letters) by Robert S. Bramson, Unisys Dr. Dobb's Journal, March 1990, p 8 Text: Dear DDJ, In the ``Letters'' column of your December 1989 issue, Mark Nelson discusses U.S. Patent 4,558,302 entitled ``High Speed Data Compression and Decompression Apparatus and Method.'' The patent was developed by Terry Welch, a former Unisys employee, and is owned by Unisys. According to Mr. Nelson, I have been quoted as saying that Unisys will ``license the algorithm for a one time fee of $20,000.'' As a concession to the modem industry, Unisys has agreed to license the patent to modem manufacturers for use in modems conforming to the V42.bis data compression standard promulgated by CCITT, for a one-time fee of $20,000. This $20,000 license, however, is not a general license under all applications of our patent but is limited to the specific application discussed above. Responding to the second paragraph of Nelson's remarks, Unisys is actively looking into the possibility that a large number of software developers may be infringing one or more of our data compression patents. We have only recently become aware of these potential infringers and the process of taking action will take some time. Unisys is happy to accept inquiries from persons interested in acquiring a license to U.S. Patent 4,558,302. If your readers have any further questions, they should contact Mr. Edmund Chung of our licensing office, at 313-972-7114. Robert S. Bramson Unisys Blue Bell, Penn. Computer program patents compiled by Richard A. Jordan A 12-page list of patents. Outline of cases on patenting of software by James M. Smith Twelve cases up to 1989. Policy and pragmatism: the broader issues in the debate on software patents by Brian Kahin Patentable subject matter: mathematical algorithms and computer programs by Lee E. Barrett Official Gazetter of the U.S. Patent and Trademark Office, September 5, 1989, pp 1106 OG 5-12 "New, useful, and nonobvious" by Steven Lubar [American Heritage of] Invention and Technology, Spring/Summer 1990, pp 9-16 History of patent law. Teaser: An invention must be all three to get a patent, and even then it may have trouble. The story of two hundred years of U.S. patent law and its impossible task of defining what is an invention. Lotus: patent vs. copyright? (editorial) by Stephen Chow Boston Globe, Aug 21, 1990 Software Patents League for Programming Freedom Doctor Dobb's Journal, November 1990, pp 56-73 This is the League position paper "Against Software Patents" Patently unfair? The system created to protect the individual inventor may be hindering innovation (Perspectives) by Brett Glass Infoworld, October 27, 1990, pp 56,58,62 (?) Sidebar about the microchip patent granted 20 years after application. Basic principles of patent protection for computer software (Legally speaking) by J. Michael Jakes and E. Robert Yoches Communications of the ACM, August 1989, V32 #8, pp 922-924 Basics, plus "Patents in the field of computer software, while still in their infancy, will likely be no different from patents in any other field." The Wright brothers and software invention by Paul Heckel Epilogue to: The elements of friendly software design January 22, 1991 Sybex Computer Books Megalomaniacal ravings about his huge contribution (he is the HyperCard patent inventor) and not getting his due; he compares himself favorably to the Wright brothers. The coming showdown over software patents: broader protection of inventors' rights could hurt the industry (Information Processing) by Evan I. Schwartz, with Michele Galen Business Week, May 13, 1991, pp 104-105 Patently Obvious (Technical correspondence) by Marcel Schoppers and Rebecca Schmitt Communications of the ACM, February 1991, V34 #2, pp 81-82 Proposes rules for patenting of algorithms Intellectual Property Law by Robert Dunaway Upside, April 1991, pp 58-59 Very brief overview. The "basic proposal" for harmonization of U.S. and worldwide patent laws submitted by WIPO by Edward G. Fiorito The Journal of the Patent and Trademark Office Society, February 1991, V73 #2, pp 88-99 This is an excerpt of the article as published, which runs pp 83--109. The power of the patent portfolio by Chuck Boyer Think, #5, 1990, pp 10-11 blurb: Being a world-clas manufacturer and marketer isn't enough. You need to own the right to compete. That's why IBM is encouraging more patenting of inventions. Protesting software patents (Back end) anonymous DEC Professional, p 160 Anonymous letter in John C. Dvorak's column about a patent suit for a dozen lines of code that control speaker volume by varying the rate at which the speaker is toggled. Developments in patent harmonization by William S. Thompson February 1991 Patent rights by Cay S. Hortsmann Communications of the ACM, May 1991, V34 #5, p 98 Response to a letter; points out that awarding of patents isn't a God-given act or a law of nature, but one predicated upon social good. Confessions of a used-program salesman (The Open Channel) by Will Tracz Computer, April 1991, p 112 Argues that intellectual property law will prevent software reuse. Software patents stifle innovation (Crosstalk) by Dick Dunn Electronic Engineering Times, May 20, 1991, p 40 A short, well-done letter to the editor. Experiences prosecuting software related patent applications by Shelly M. Beckstrand PCT Research Foundation of the Franklin Pierce Law Center Conference on Patenting Software, January 16, 1990 Text of a how-to speech. Report of the Committee on Algorithms and the Law by George B. Dantzig, Donald Goldfarb, Eugene Lawler, Clyde Monma, and Stephen M. Robinson (chair) Optima, June 1991, #33 Special edition of the Mathematical Programming Society newsletter. The report itself is quite short and strongly opposes algorithm patents. There are two longer appendices: The case against "software" patents, by Brian Kahin; and Against software patents, by the League for Programming Freedom. The patent game: raising the ante (News & Comment) by Eliot Marshall Science, 5 July 1991, Vol 253, pp 20-24 Includes sidebars "Computerizing 28 million files" by Eliot Marchall and "Can electronic property be protected?" by David P. Hamilton Correspondence among Mike Lawrence, Senator John McCain, and Harry F. Manbeck, Jr. (Assistant Secretary and Commissioner of Patents and Trademarks) October 29, 1990 - February 27, 1991 Whose invention is it anyway? (Science and Technology) by Gary Slutsker and David C. Churbuck Forbes, August 19, 1991, pp 114-118 Criticizes overly broad patents and the current pro-patent courtroom stance as stifling invention. Rubber Dentures for the Masses by Carmine Prioli American Heritage of Invention & Technology, Fall 1991, pp 28-37 Blurb: "Vulcanite made false teeth practical and affordable, and dentists saw it as a godsend -- until an unscrupulous operator held the entire profession hostage." On the complex economics of patent scope by Robert P. Merges and Richard R. Nelson Columbia Law Review, May 1990, V90 #4, pp 839-916 Argues that product patents and broad basic patents slow progress. Contains some good case study information. Editorial: Patently wrong Licensing Product Times, Fall 1991, V3 #3, p 2 Argues against larger patent maintenance fees that would make the PTO self-supporting. This issue also contains, on page 3, "Radical Revision of the US Patent and Trademark System", by H. Jay Spiegel, Esq. Why patents are bad for software by Simson L. Garfinkel, Richard M. Stallman, and Mitchell Kapor Issues in Science and Technology, FAll 1991, V8 #1, pp 50-55 One size fits all: US patent laws are out of date and senseless (Innovation) by Michael Schrage Boston Sunday Globe, October 27, 1991 Legalizing Intellectual Property (Law & technology) by Jeff Ubois Midrange Systems, October 15, 1991, V4 #20, pp 51-52 An economic review of the patent system: A study of the Subcommittee on Patents, Trademarks, and Copyrights of the Committee on the Judiciary, United States Senate by Fritz Machlup Forward dated June 30, 1958 Critical of patent system: it protects that which would become public knowledge anyway, rewards to inventors are slight, incentives to research not otherwise done questionable. There is no empirical evidence to decide the conflict of theories, however, so safest policy conclusion is to muddle along without changes. Imitation costs and patents: an empirical study by Edwin Masfield, Mark Schwartz, and Samuel Wagner The Economic Journal, 91 (December 1981), pp 907-918 From the conclusion: "Contrary to the assumption of many economic models, a patent frequently does not result in a 17-year monopoly over the relevant innovation. Patents do tend to increase imitation costs, particularly in the drug industry, but excluding drugs, patent protection did not seem essential for the development and introduction of at least three-fourths of the patented innovations studied here." The use of patents for the protection of technological innovation: A case study of selected Swedish firms by Ove Granstrand UNCTAD/ITP/TEC/13, 18 September 1990 From the "Summary and Conclusion": "(viii) For both large and small firms, it was confirmed that patents were regarded as more appropriate for product innovation, while secrecy ws considred to offer better protection for process innovation." "For small firms, patents were of no significant relevance to prevent imiatation. Such firms rely more on secrecy and technologicla lead time. The purpose of patenting for the small firms engaged in patenting (5 out of 11), was mainly to create bargaining power in negotiations relating to financing, licensing or co-operation. For large firms, patents are often viewed as an alternative to secrecy and the propensity to patent is a function of expectations. The firms tend to apply for patents in cases when reverse engineering is believed not to be costly and infringements could be easily detected. Another resaons for patenting is when the enforcement of the patent law is regarded as effective. Still other reasons for patentign are government requirements for ublic disclosure (chemicals, agro-industry) and the collective behaviour of the firms, which causes firms to patent if one firm starts patenting in an area that was not previously covered by patents. (ix) Regarding the effectiveness of patents, the firms regretted the lack of international standards and the limited effectiveness of patent protection. ... (x) ... Small firms have a higher number of patents per employee and per Swedish crowns spent on research. However, they also have a lower share of commercially exploited patents and a higher proportion of patenting costs of the total R and D expenditures. This indicates that small firms are relatively more innovative. ... (xii) Patents as an instrument to stimulate innovative activities appeared to be of little relevance for small firms. It was found that no significant changes in the R and D behaviour would take place if the patent protection time were reduced or extended. Aslo, for large firms, the R and D behaviour seems to be rather independent of the availability of patenting protection. The survey showed that increased patent protection is likely to provide, at most, a modest stimulus for R and D activities. Chemical, and particularly pharmaceutical, firms appear to be more sensitive to such changes." Draft Report, Advisory Commission on Patent Law Reform (For discussion purposes only) Meeting of January 16-17, 1992 Draft Report and Recommendations, January 16, 1992, is strongly pro-software-patent. Recommends that non-patent prior art be made available and that classification schemes be improved. Letter of 1/29/92 from Vern Blanchard, American Multi-Systems, regarding threats to close him down over patent 4,856,787. Includes a fax of a threatening letter from a lawyer. Also his complaint for an injunction against FortuNet. Against software patents (Viewpoint) by The League for Programming Freedom Communications of the ACM, V35 #1, January 1992, pp 17-22,121 Software patents -- The view from 1991 by David Bender The Liscensing Journal, September 1991, pp 3-6 reprinted from Currrent Developments in Computer Software Protection 1991, published by Practising Law Institute. Gung-ho article debunking myths about the inefficacy of software patents and encouraging companies to apply for them. Against software patents by the League for Programming Freedom Unix User, November 1991, V1 #1, pp 4-9, 16 Experimental use as patent infringement: the impropriety of a broad exception by Jordan P. Karp Yale Law Journal, 1991, V100, pp 2169-2811 Argues that the experimental use exception (it is permitted to make use of a patent for research without paying royalties) is a bad idea, and that policy arguments dictate that this judge-made exception should be removed (or replaced by industry-specific rules) rather than codified into law. He suggests that the experimental use doctrine slows innovation rather than speeding it, and that it prevents firms from realizing the full benefits of their patents. Debunking Myths by Paul Heckel Communications of the ACM, June 1992, Vol 35, No. 6 Paul Heckel argues the case for patents. Makes a case that software should be patentable like other technolies, that patents define intellectual property which can be traded, etc. and that this trade helps to stimulate innovation. He admits that big companies have the edge on patent protection, and advises people not to be concerned about potential patent infringement, and that they should keep a reserve of cash in case they do infringe on a patent. Cites economists who think patents are beneficial. Recommends that policy should be made on the assumption that software patents are beneficial, that the patent laws should be changed to make it easier to assert patents, and of course further study on the role of patents and federal funding. Contains lots of references. Developments on the Intellectual Property Front by Pamela Sammuelson, Michel Denber, and Robert J. Glushko Communications of the ACM, June 1992, Vol 35, No. 6 Discussion of SIGGRAPH and CHI surveys. Notes that key members of the US Department of Commerce Advisory Commission on Patent Law Reform are strongly pro-patent. Notes that Commission survey questions are biased to the pro-patent position, and misrepresent the status quo. Also notes GATT TRIPS draft provision to make patents available without regard for technology. ACM Forum Communications of the ACM, June 1992, Vol 35, No. 6 Letter by Dennis Ritchie supporting Rob Pike's patent (at least the influence of the paper) Letter from frenchman Eric Vetillard supporting LPF and suggesting possible international consequences of software patents. Letter from Bruce E. Hayden, (apparently a patent attorney) argueing that all the problems reside in the PTO refusal to hire CS qualified examiners. Also advises people not to worry about patent infringement if sales of the infringing product is less than 200 million dollars. Also includes responses by the LPF. Patent Protection May Extend to Software After All... Mechanical Engineering April 1992, pg. 75 By Curtis L. Harrington, Registered Patent Attorney Discusses Grams and Iwahashi briefly, and talks about Logan. States that Logan eases the patenting of software and urges software developers to reevaluate the potential for obtaining patents. The patent is expiring as a spur to innovation Business Week: May 11, 1981 pp. 44c, 44f Software patents: an example of the threat by Paul W. Abrahams ACM SIGPLAN Notices, V27 #8, August 1992, pp 87-88 Software patents: Boon or bane Computer world 6/1/92 pg. 33 by Richard Stallman Audio tape from KAEO forum March,92 is folded in the paper. Rights and wrongs Computer shopper March 1992 pg. 329 by Charles Stross This column may be illegal SunExpert Magazine January 1992 pg. 35-36 by Richard Morin I/Opener column Patent Protection may extend to software after all... Mechanical Engineering April 1992 pg. 75 by Curtis L. Harrington The Software Patent Crisis Technology Review April 1990 by Brian Kahin U.S. Patent #4,988,981 VR Monitor January/February pg. 2 by Steve Aukstakalnis The Time to harmonize is now by Edward J. Raldo Fenwick & west Palo Alto ACM Fax To: Richard Stallman from: Robert Fox 3/17/92 Notes: A Fax from Dennis Ritchie to the ACM on Robert pikes work. Patent Infringement: Novell faces legal value Informationweek March 16 1992 pg 13,14(top) by Bob Violino =========================================================================== PATENT DISCLOSURES ================== see the file patent-list =========================================================================== LPF CLIPPINGS ============= Software Justice League of America by Denny Atkin Compute Magazine CPSR Newsletter Summer 1991 =========================================================================== INTELLECTUAL PROPERTY ARTICLES ============================== Statement of Anne Wells Branscomb, Esquire before the Subcommittee on Courts, Intellectual Property, and Administration of Justice, U.S. House of Representatives Protecting the crown jewels of the information economy The legal protection of computer software as an intellectual asset An overview of policy issues for congressional oversight November 8, 1989 Time to unshackle U.S. competitive stengths (Essay) by Richard J. Mahoney Scientific American, May 1990, p. 136 This is more about getting American industry to be better at marketing and removing legislative hurdles (such as slow product approval by FDA). Forms of legal protection (graph) Protecting trade secrets First sentence: This memorandum has been prepared by Lucash, Gesmer & Updegrove as a guide to developing an effective trade secret protection program. Legal protection of information by Jeffrey A. Meldman Weaver, V7 #1, Fall 1989 This article, an attempt at an overview of copyright, patent, and trademark protection, is remarkably content-free. Can "Intellectual Property" be protected? An important debate begins (cover) Change, May/June 1989 This issue includes: How can "intellectual property" be "protected"? (editorial) by Harlan Cleveland, pp 10-11 The electronic lumberyard and builders' rights: technology, copyrights, patents, and academe by Francis Dummer Fisher, pp 13-21 Are Plato and the parthenon copyrighted? by Francis Dummer Fisher, p 15 Intellectual property in the information age: issues beyond the copyright law by Steven W. Gilbert and Peter Lyman, pp 23-28 Software patents: Franchising the information infrastructure by Brian Kahin, pp 24-25 Rethinking Communications Policy by D. Linda Garcia, p 28 Who owns creativity? : Property rights in the information age by Anne W. Branscomb Technology Review, May/June 1988, pp 38-45 Intellectual property: law comes to the frontier Release 1.0, 21 August 1989 A serviceable, if overly informal, introduction to law in intellectual property. Has some good suggestions for improvement, but their attitude is that everything should be ownable and that they sure hope that companies choose to place most of these possessions in the public domain or to license them at low cost. Digital media and the changing face of intellectual property law by Pamela Samuelson Rutgers Comptuer and Technology Law Journal, V16 #2. From the introduction: What distinguishes digital media are six characteristics that will make it difficult for existing categories fo intellectual property law to adjust to the protection of works in digital form. They are: (1) the ease with which works in digital form can be replicated, (2) the ease with which they can be transmitted, (3) the ease with which they can be modified and manipulated, (4) the equivalence of works in digital form, (5) the compactness of works in digital form, and (6) the capacity they have for creating new methods of searching digital space and linking works together. Computer Software and Intellectual Property---Background Paper U.S. Congress, Office of Technology Assessment OTA-BP-CIT-61 Washington, DC: U.S. Government Printing Office, March 1990 Good background paper on the issues at stake in the debate over copyright and patent protection for software. Office of Technology Assessment brochure January 1990 OTA Project Proposal ``Staying on Top: The Challenges of Technological Change and Global Competition in Protecting Intellectual Property'' April 18, 1990 This study has be renamed to "Computer Software and Intellectual Property: Meeting the Challenges of Technological Change and Global Competition" Staff Paper on Intellectual-Property Protection for Computer Software OTA Communication and Information Technologies Program November 2, 1989 Testimony before oversight hearing on Computers and Intellectual Property (U.S. Congress Committee on the Judiciary, Subcommittee on Courts, Intellectual Property, and the Administration of Justice) November 8, 1989 Statements of Robert Kastenmeier (Chairman, introductory remarks) Milton Wessel, Arizona State University Pamela Samuelson, Emory University Leo Raskind, University of Minnesota Steven Gilbert, EDUCOM Ronald Reiling, CBEMA Thomas Lemberg, Lotus (his statement mostly concerned piracy, not imitation) Intellectual property concepts by Richard A. Jordan Outline-style overview; sketchy, but useful. Join the League for Programming Freedom (Commentary) by Simson L. Garfinkel BCS Update, October 1990 Rights and wrongs of software by Dan Charles New Scientist, 29 September 1990, pp 44-48 This is the cover story, "Whose software is it anyway?" Argues the evils of overprotection. Abstract: "Computer programs are valuable property but how much should their creators be rewarded? According to many experts, using laws to protect every software idea will inhibit the development of better products and prevent smaller firms from competing with giants." Programming freedom at risk: Trends in software patents and copyrights threaten programmers' tools, ideas by Jason Levitt Unix Today!, September 17, 1990, pp 50-51 History of intellectual property protection of software. Strongly pro-LPF. Keeper of the faith: Richard Stallman is leading a crusade to preserve your porgramming freedom by Jay Fraser EDN, October 1, 1990, pp 174-180 Power to the programer by Nathan Cobb The Boston Globe Magazine, October 21, 1990, pp 16-17,39-48 About Richard Stallman and his work for/with LPF Intellectual property protection in the personal computer industry: does the conduct of IBM and Lotus constitute a violation of antitrust laws? by Mary Kathryn Holt In search of equillibrium: intellectual property, antitrust, and the personal computer industry by Mary Kathryn Holt Software Law Journal, Fall 1988, V II #4, pp 575-595 Who needs copyrights? Who needs patents? by Peter H. Salaus README, Spring 1991, V6 #1, pp 1-16 Essentially the "Against user interface copyright" and "Against software patents" LPF handouts. Programs to the people by Simson L. Garfinkel Technology Review, March 1991, pp 53-60 Focusses on Stallman and FSF Intellectual property issues in software by the Computer Science and Telecommunications Board, National Research Council, May 1991 This 111-page booklet is careful not to take a stand and to speak only in generalities. An introduction to the law and economics of intellectual property by Stanley M. Besen and Leo J. Raskind Journal of Economic Perspectives, Winter 1991, V5 #1, pp 3-27 Hearing on computers and intellectual property before the Subcommittee on Courts, Intellectual Property, and the Administration of Justice, Committee of the Judiciary, United States House of Representatives. Statement by Jeffrey M. Samuels, Acting Commissioner of Patents and Trademarks Only pages 1, 14, 26 He defends patent protection for computer processes and copyright protection for the expression in interfaces. Informal statement posted on Invention Factory BBS in response to a patent attorney's statement there by Charles B. Kramer, Esq. June 16, 1991 Argues that trade secret is more useful, and patent less useful, than widely recognized. Patents and copyrights: protecting intellectual property (special report) by Joseph S. Iandiorio Microwave Journal, April 1991, pp 30-39 A pro-broad-protection and how-to article by a lawyer. Computer software and the evolution of intellectual property rights by Charles M. Nelson Licensing Product Times, V3 #4, Winter 1991 Typical quote: "External observers find current developments at once mundane and economically inevitable [in the transformation to a mature industry]." Nelson says that history tells us that eventually the monopolies will be broken. Bias varies between anti-LPF, which he says "believe[s] that the industry should be accorded only the most rudimentary forms of patent and copyright protection", and claims that current situation will lead to monopolies. Interesting view of "majority" opinion. Says the Supreme Court ruled algorithms patentable. Softwars by Gino Del Guercio World Monitor, October 1991, pp 22-24 Brief overview of conflicting positions on intellectual property protection. New ideas, methods, and products: XII. Software protection: Patents, copyrights, and trade secrets. An intellectual property primer. by Joseph S. Iandorio pamphlet A Report on Intellectual Property Law Brumbaugh Report (BGD&R) Volume 2, Number 1, Spring 1992 The Importance of an Attorney's Opinion in Litigated Matters by Joseph D Garon Software Copyright Infringement: A Court Declines to Follow Whelan v. Jaslow by Carl Oppedahl New Rules and ees for Disclosure of Information to the USPTO How Can We Sue Him -- He's The Inventor? by Marina T. Larson, Ph.D. A Game-Software Ruling that's deadly Serious PC-Week 5/11/92 ,pg 69 by Jim Seymour Patenting Mathematical Algorithims that 'embrace' Mather Nature The computer Lawyer May 1992 pgs 2-16 by Irah Donner =========================================================================== PAMELA SAMUELSON ================ What the user interface field thinks about the "look and feel" lawsuits by Pamela Samuelson and Robert J. Glushko Is copyright law steering the right course? by Pamela Samuelson IEEE Software, September 1988, pp 78-86 Reverse-engineering someone else's software: is it legal? by Pamela Samuelson IEEE Software, January 1990, pp 90-96 Presents arguments of both sides. Her legal opinion is that reverse engineering is legal. Interpreting reverse-engineering law (Software letters) by Victor Siber and Pamela Samuelson IEEE Software, July 1990, pp 4ff Siber, IBM's Corporate Counsel, believes reverse engineering is not legal under current law, and rebuts a Jan 1990 article by Samuelson. Samuelson then responds to Siber. Reflections on the state of american software copyright law and the perils of teaching it by Pamela Samuelson Why the look and feel of software user interfaces should not be protected by copyright law by Pamela Samuelson Communications of the ACM, v32,#5, May 1989, pp 563-572 Survey on the look and feel lawsuits (Legally Speaking) by Pamela Samuelson and Robert J. Glushko Communications of the ACM, May 1990, v33 #5, pp 483-487 Interface specifications, compatibility, and intellectual property law (Legally Speaking) by Pamela Samuelson Communications of the ACM, Feb. 1990, v33 #2, pp 111-114 Protecting user interfaces through copyright: the debate by Pamela Samuelson ACM CHI'89 Proceedings, May 1989, pp 97-103 protecting user interfaces through copyright (panel); Pamela Samuelson, Jack E. Brown, Thomas M. S. Hemnes, and Micheal E. Lesk; ACM CHI'89 Proceedings, May 1989, pp 104 Should program algorithms be patented? (Legally Speaking) by Pamela Samuelson Communications of the ACM, V33 #8, August 1990, pp 23-27 How to interpret the Lotus decision (and how not to) (Legally Speaking) by Pamela Samuelson Draft. How to interpret the Lotus decision (and how not to) (Legally speaking) by Pamela Samuelson Communications of the ACM, November 1990, V33 #11, pp 27-33 The patentability of computer programs revisited by Pamela Samuelson 214 pages Benson revisited: the case against patent protection for algorithms and other computer progra-related inventions by Pamela Samuelson Emory Law Journal, Fall 1990, V39 #4, pp 1025-1154 Equal Justice (ACM Forum) by Michael Gemignani and Pamela Samuelson Communications of the ACM, April 1991, V34 #4, pp 15-18 Gemignani calls Keeton's decision "the clearest and most thoughtful opinion concerning software copyrights I have yet come across." Samuelson rebuts. Is information property? (Legally speaking) by Pamela Samuelson Communications of the ACM, March 1991, V34 #3, pp15-18 Based on the Neidorf trial over 911 information "theft". Digital media and the law (Legally speaking) by Pamela Samuelson Communications of the ACM, October 1991, V34 #10, pp23-28 Lists six ways in which digital media is different from other types and will require current laws to be rethought or rewritten. Copyright law and electronic compilations of data (Legally speaking) by Pamela Samuelson Communications of the ACM, February 1992, V35 #2, pp27-32 In Feist Publications vs Rural Telephone Service, the Supreme Court dropped a bombshell: compilations are effectively removed from copyright protection if they have any overarching organization. The "sweat-of-the-brow" principle was overturned. "It will not be surprising to see more electronic information providers relying on patents in the aftermath of Feist." "Feist undercuts some of the rationale for strong copyright protection of programs, such as that found in the Lotus vs. Paperback opinion." "Competitors have an affirmative right to copy valuable but unprotected elements of copyrighted works. After Feist, it would seem that courts would need to do more in computer program copyright cases than recite the number of ways in which something could be done (e.g., the number of differnt ways in which commands might be organized in a user interface) to justtify a conclusion of "original expression" is present which can serve as a predicate to a finding of copyright infringement." =========================================================================== 1989 LOTUS PROTEST (CLIPPINGS) ============================== Lotus Corp targeted by picketers over "look and feel" copyright issue by Anthony Flint The Boston Globe, front page of business section "Power to programmers," picketers tell Lotus PC/Computing AI Researchers Announce Boycott of litigious computer companies by Barbara Darrow Tandy claims competitors infringed patents on certain laptop displays by Patricia J. Pane Infoworld Pickets want software design freedom by Jeffrey Krasner pp 58,62 The Berkshire Eagle, Thursday, May 25, 1989 photo and caption on page 1 Peace, love, not look-and-feel: MIT scientists lead 15-strong anticopyright protest on Lotus premises by Michael Alexander ComputerWorld Computer scientists, watch out! Ad in The Tech, Friday, April 14, 1989, p 7 by Marvin Minsky, Richard Stallman, Gerald Sussman Scientists oppose software lawsuits: 150 picket outside Lotus headquarters San Francisco Examiner (Associated Press), Thursday, May 25, 1989, p D4 Programmers protest copyright litigation: Picketers march on Lotus; Apple is next by June Gross Taking it to the street... (Monitor) PC Week, May 22, 1989, Business section Get out those picket signs (Micro Bits) by Michael Alexander ComputerWorld 200 march against Lotus lawsuits InfoWorld, May 29, 1989, p 5 Programmers and users picket Lotus, protesting user-interface copyright litigation May 24, 1989 League for Programming Freedom press release Grass-roots movement protests software suits by June Gross pp 3,13 =========================================================================== 1990 LOTUS PROTEST (CLIPPINGS) ============================== Programmers and Users Protest Lotus Lawsuits League for Programming Freedom press release August 6, 1990 Software lawsuits protested (photo and caption) Lewsiton, Maine Sun-Journal, Friday, August 3, 1990, p. 19 Marching on Lotus (Top of the week) Infoweek, July 23, 1990, p 14 March on Lotus (Top of the week) Infoweek, August 6, 1990, p 16 Software protest (photo with caption) Boston Globe Computing the cost of copyright: programmers fight `look and feel' lawsuits by John Schwartz and Debra Rosenberg Newsweek, August 27, 1990, p. 52 Freedom chant (Newstrack) Communications of the ACM, October 1990, V33 #10, p 9 Programmers and users protest against Lotus lawsuits by Richard Stallman Managing Intellectual Property, March 1991, #6, pp 36-39 Carries a preceding editorial disclaimer that these views aren't widely held and may be found offensive. Includes "Lotus disinformation: forewarned is forearmed". =========================================================================== FLYERS ====== Flyer for Berkeley League for Programming Freedom meeting of 10/28/91, with Jack Larsen speaking. =========================================================================== UROPEAN COMMUNITY ================== European Committee for Interoperable Systems (ECIS) packet, including position papers from both sides, journal articles, etc. This organization's views seem closely aligned with those of the LPF. Software patents: law of the jungle The Economist, August 18 1990, pp 59-60 Shows up as 'Why Software Patents are a Bad Idea' in the table of contents Soft in the head The Economist, March 10, 1990, p 15 Lotus may be fair game for European copycats by Wendy Hower Boston Business Journal, November 5, 1990, p 3 Discusses EC proposals Economic effects of the Australian patent system: A commissioned report to the industrial property advisory committee T. D. Mandeville, D. M. Lamberton, and E. J. Bishop, Department of Economics, University of Queensland, Australian Government Publishing Service, Canberra, 1982 "No copyright in original idea", court rules by Sallyanne Hapke Pacific Computer Weekly, Friday 21 September 1990, pp 3-4 Proposal for a Council Directive on the legal protection of computer programs Official Journal of the European Communities, April 12, 1989, #C91, pp 4-16 Amended proposal for a Council Directive on the legal protection of computer programs Official Journal of the European Communities, December 20, 1990, #C320 V33, pp 22-30 This is the final version. Report fo the Diplomatic Conference for the Conclusion of a Treaty Supplementing the Paris Convention as far as Patents are Concerned Final Session, June 3 to 21, The Hague The draft treaty is WIPO docuemnt PLT/DC/3 of December 21, 1990 Against User Interface Copyright by the League for Programming Freedom EurOpen Newsletter, Spring 1992, V12 #1, pp 6-8 Against Software Patents by the League for Programming Freedom EurOpen Newsletter, Spring 1992, V12 #1, pp 9-14 Assembl\'ee Nationale #352 (12 au\^ut 1968) #744 (14 mai 1987) French law on software copyright =========================================================================== WIPO (WORLD INTELLECTUAL PROPERTY ORGANIZATION) =============================================== Diplomatic conference for the conclusion of a treaty supplementing the Paris convention as far as patents are concerned: The "Basic Proposal" for the treaty and the regulations WIPO (World Intellectual Property Organization) The Hague, June 3 to 28, 1991 Docutment PL/DC/3 Diplomatic conference for the conclusion of a treaty supplementing the Paris convention as far as patents are concerned: Notes on the Basic proposal for the treaty and regulations WIPO (World Intellectual Property Organization) The Hague, June 3 to 28, 1991 Docutment PL/DC/4 Diplomatic conference for the conclusion of a treaty supplementing the Paris convention as far as patents are concerned: History of the preparations of the patent law treaty WIPO (World Intellectual Property Organization) The Hague, June 3 to 28, 1991 Docutment PL/DC/5 =========================================================================== GATT (General Agreement on Tariffs and Trade) ============================================= Multilateral trade negotiations: The Uruguay round Draft final at embodying the results f the uruguay round of multilateral trade negotiations GATT Secretariat 20 December 1991 =========================================================================== MISCELLANEOUS CLIPPINGS ======================= Common ground: two foundations in search of an integrated work world by Robert Dietrich FAX, August 1, 1989, pp 3-5 Report on FSF and OSF bundeled with: Too much control stifles competition by Stan Kugell FAX, August 1, 1989, p 5 Sources for the software intellectual protection issue by Randall Davis Navigating the public domain Massachusetts Institute of Technology Communications Forum April 3, 1986 Douglas Chamberlain, Richard Stallman, Stanley Doherty Strategy Plan (Newstrack) Communications of the ACM, July 1990, V33 #7, p 12 Text: The Office of Technology Assessment (OTA) is conducting a study to determine what the government can do to maintain the U.S. lead in the software market. The OTA is exploring the technological changes and trends in software and computer technologies that Congress must confront in adapting our current system of intellectural property protection to meet the demands of the future. The study, which began in May, is entitled "Staying on Top: The Challenges of Tehcnological Cange and Global Competition in Protecting Intellectual Property." The agency expects to deliver its findings to the Technology Assessment Board by October 1991, and publish those results by February 1992. When imitation isn't the sincerest form of flattery by Edmund L. Andrews New York Times, 8/5/90, p 20E Article on new laws to provide protection on mechanical designs Dispute brews over right to charge for stock quotes by William Power The Wall Street Journal, April 5, 1990, p. C1 Legal protection of software and computer records by Jeffrey A. Meldman Contains lots of tables about computer crime Ferrari wins trademark suit agains a Tennessee kit-car manufacturer newspaper clipping "... the reproductions ... infringe on Ferrarri's trademark rights on the designs and appearances of the cars." The League for Programming Freedom, Inc. Articles of Organization The League for Programming Freedom, Inc. By-Laws Letter from David Charles Masselli to Richard Stallman about an OTA Workshop on Computer Software and Intellectual Property Single issue politics: how to by Aubrey Jaffer email message from jaffer@zurich.ai.mit.edu to rms@ai.mit.edu, 23 Aug 90 Nurturing creativity: the MacArthur fellowships by James Walsh Technology Review, August/Septermber 1990, pp MIT19-MIT24 Doesn't include Stallman in the list; maybe he hadn't received his yet. Intellectual property rights of Media Labratory Sponsors Effective 11/30/88 Pages 2-5; page 2 starts with item a. Was there a page 1? Interview on "Music Mouse", folk music, copyright, etc Ear Magazine, pp 17-18 The National Inventors Hall of Fame brochure Department of Defense Software Master Plan (preliminary draft), February 9, 1990, Volume I: Plan of Action, Volume 2: Background (Annexes A0g) Packet of material on design protection. Includes: H.R. 902 H.R. 3017 H.R. 3499 Opening remarks of Robert W. Kastenmeier for hearing on H.R. 902, H.R. 3017, H.R. 3499 (May 3 and June 20, 1990 Talking points on design protection (unbylined, March 31, 1990) Refreshing, thoughtful look at intellectual property and software by George Trubow IEEE Software, p 105 Exceedingly positive, even rah-rah, review of Intellectual property issues in software National Research Council National Acadamy Press, 1991, 98 pp, $15 Drafting and Negotiation Strategic Alliances Douglas F. Flood Esq. Fish and Richardson. Licensing Symposium of the Technology Transfer Society 12/7/91 =========================================================================== OTA (OFFICE OF TECHNOLOGY ASSESSMENT) ===================================== Materials regarding December 7, 1990 workshop: Computer Software and Intellectual Property: Meeting the Challenges of Technological Change and Global Competition A bill of rights for electronic citizens by Frank Connolly, Steve W. Gilbert, Peter Lyman March 13, 1990 Written for OTA by an outside contractor. The wealth of nations: can classical economics guide radical technology? by Steven W. Gilbert, Frank Connolly, Peter Lyman, Michael Merrill, Rena Lederman November 21, 1990 First discussion draft of report for OTA by an outside contractor. The wealth of nations: can classical economics guide radical technology? by Steven W. Gilbert, Frank Connolly March 22, 1990 Second discussion draft of report for OTA by an outside contractor. Annual report to the Congress, fiscal year 1990 Office of Technology Assessment Draft of OTA report on "Computer Software and Intellectual Property" As of August 26, 1991. This is hundreds of pages long. Also response of Michael Ernst, external reviewer, to the draft. OTA report Brief Finding a balance: Computer Software,Intellectual propert,and the challenge of Technological change. April 1992 Finding a Balance: Computer Software, Intellectual property and the Challenge of Technological change. Notes this is a Book published by the Office of Technological asesment. =========================================================================== LETTERS TO USPTO ================ from Donald E. Killen, President, Greenleaf Software from Michael D. Ernst, MIT Laboratory for Computer Science from Dr. Arthur Sorkin, Los Gatos, CA from the National Association of Manufacturers Oracle corporation responses to department of commerece April 27,1992 =========================================================================== COURT CASES =========== Whelan Associates, Inc. v. Jaslow Dental Laboratory United States Court of Appeals, Third Circuit Aug. 4, 1986 797 Federal Reporter, 2d series, pp 1222-1249 Broderbund Software, Inc., and Pixellite Software v. Unison World, Inc. Opinion and Order U.S. District Court, Northern District of California October 8, 1986 Diamond v. Diehr United States Supreme Court March 3, 1981 Telemarketing Resources v. Symantec Corp 12 USPQ 2d, pp 1991-1996 Sept. 6, 1989 Xerox Corporation v. Apple Computer, Inc. Complaint for declaratory judgment; to strike registrations; unfair competition; and unjust enrichment. December 5, 1989 Apple Computer, Inc. v. Franklin Computer Corp. United States Court of Appeals, Third Circuit Argued March 17, 1983 Decided Aug. 30, 1983 Rehearing and Rehearing In Banc Denied Sept. 23, 1983 714 Federal Reporter, 2d Series, pp 1242-1255 Johnson Controls, Inc. v. Phoenix Control Systems, Inc.; Rodney Larsen and Iren Larsen; and John Schratz and Martha Schratz Manufacturers TEchnologies Inc. v. Cams Inc. Decided January 30, 1989 by Daly, C.J., District Court, D. Conneticut 10 USPQ2d, pp 1321-1338 Lasercomb America Inc. v. Reynolds Decided August 16, 1990 15 USPQ2d, pp 1846-1856 Seems, on a quick skimming, to be a standard case: Defendants copied licensed source code and marketed it as their own product. Lotus Development Corporation against Borland International, Inc. Civil action No. 90-11662-K Brief amicus curiae of copyright law professors "We offer our views on this subject out of concernt about the overbroad test used in assessing the copyrightability of the Lotus 1-2-3 user interface and its component parts in Lotus Development Corporation v. Paperback Software International, 740 F. Supp 37 (D. Mass. 1990). We regard the test employed in tat opinion to be inconsistent with the copyright statute, the copyright caselaw, and traditional principles of copyright law. Its use not only has an adverse effect on the develpment of copyright doctrine, but has substantial potential to have an adverse effect on software development and the software industry. It should not be employed in jusdging the copyright issues in the Lotus v. Borland dispute." Excellent source for, among other things, the intentions of the framers of the copyright law regarding protection for computer programs. Arrhythmia Research Technology, Inc. v. Corazonix Corporation Appeal from the U.S. District Court of Northern Texas No. 91-1091 Arrhythmia Research developed a high pass filter to detect imminent failure of a heart valve, and issued patent 4,422,459 in 1983. Corazonix sued and the US District court of Texas invalidated the patent. This is the appeal by Arrhythmia to reinstate the patent. In appendices, there is a copy of the patent 4,422,459. Contains opinion by Newman, Circuit Judge and concurring opinion by Rader, which reversed the US District court and reinstated the patent. Brown bag software v. Symantec Corp Appeal from from the United states district court for northern district of California No. 89-16239 Sega Enterprises Inc. v. Accolade Inc. Case no c-91-3871 BAC United states court of appeals ninth circuit =========================================================================== LOTUS V. PAPERBACK ================== Lotus Development Corporation v. Paperback Software International and Stephenson Software, Limited. Opinion of District Judge Keeton United States District Court, District of Massachusetts June 28, 1990 =========================================================================== PROIR ART ========= For Heckel's patent, from Donna Love For REFAC patent, from Tom Epperly For byte order patent, "A network independent file transfer protocol" and "FITS: a flexible image transport system" For byte order patent, "Evolution ofhte Ethernet local computer network" Predictive text compression by hashing University of Turku SF-20500 Turku,Finland Timo Raita and Jukka Teuhola TugBoat Volume 1 No 1 October 1980 Information that may help with byte order patent on pg. 17 A logarithmic Best-match algorithim for symbolic applications Michael B. Dunlavey assistant professor, Union College B. Tech Project Report An ADA Enviorment for the DEC-system-10 at I.I.T Sriram Sankar Indian Institute of technolgy Kanpur India =========================================================================== ETHICS AND PHILOSOPHY PAPERS ============================ Computers and moral responsibility: a framework for an ethical analysis by John Ladd from The Information Web: Ethical and Social Implications of Computer Networking edited by Carol C. Gould pp 207-227 Ethical issues in information technology by John Ladd Conference of Society for Social Studies of Science, Nov 15-18, 1989 Ethics and the computer revolution by John Ladd 1984 Moral issues involved in protecting software as intellectual property by Natalie Dandekar Directions and Implications of Advanced Computing (DIAC-90) conference, July 28, 1990, Cambridge, Ma pp 219-235 Review: This spends most of its time discussing how the effects of computer technology help highly developed nations and hurt less developed countries. Justifying intellectual property by Edwin C. Hettinger Philosophy & Public Affairs, Winter 1989, V18 #1 Argues that justifications of intellectual property must come from social utility, and that copyrights are easier justified than patents or trade secrets. The more lawsuits the better and other American notions (Rule of law) by L. Gordon Crovitz The Wall Street Journal, Wednesday, April 7, 1991, p A15 =========================================================================== MISCELLANEOUS (non-print or foreign) ============= The Microcomputer Newstapes Interview with Richard Stallman at start of side 2 1989, Newstapes, Inc. Photos of May 24, 1989 demonstration at Lotus Protestdemonstratie bij Lotus tegen Rechtzaken 9/6/89, p 14 Russian article with picture of Richard Stallman Article plus picture of Richard Stallman with a megaphone PC Week, Japanese edition, August 15 & 22, 1990, V1 #12. Profetan by Liv Str/omme Unix-World Norge (or is this ComputerWorld Norge?) (Norway) August 16, 1991 Article plus picture of Richard Stallman. Videocassette: Protecting the freedom to write software: the new software monopolies, and what we can do about them by Richard Stallman Arizona Computer Science Colloquium, Thursday, October 3, 1991 Videocassette: Reclaiming the freedom to write software by Richard Stallman Talk at Xerox PARC, Feb 14, 1991 Article on byte-ordering patent Nikkei Electronics 1992.1.20 (#545) Article on "Why Patent Are Bad for Software" Japanese language article by Shin Nakayama C Journal #4 Michigan Bar Journal July 1991 Notes: Varous Articles pg 674 LPF is mentioned. see attached sheet. Patentti-ja rekisterihallitus Toimintakertomus 1991 National Board of patents and Registration, Finland annual report 1991 =========================================================================== PROCEEDINGS ON SOFTWARE PROTECTION ================================== Cases & materials for LaST frontier conference on software protection February 13-14, 1989 Abbreviated table of contents: I. Important cases and administrative materials: Program structure: Whelan, Inc. v. Jaslow Dental Laboratory, Inc. Plains Cotton Cooperative Ass'n v. Good pasture Computer Service, Inc. SAS Institute, Inc. v. S & H Computer Systems, Inc. Q-co Indus v. Hoffman Pearl Systems, Inc. v. Competition Electronics, Inc. User interface protection: Digital Communications Assocs. v. Softklone Distributing Corp. Broderbund Software, Inc. v. Unison World, Inc. Synercom Technology, Inc. v. University Computing Co. Single Registration for Programs and Screen Displays, Copyright Office Notice of Registration decision Lotus Developemnt Corp v. Paperback Software Int'l, amended complaint Apple v. Microsoft, complaint Cases raising issues of compatibility and hardware constraints: Apple Computer, Inc. v. Franklin Computer Corp. NEC Corp. v. Intel Corp. E.F. Johnson Co. v. Uniden Corp. of America II. Written presentations to conference: Michael Gemignani, The Misapplication of Patent Infringement Criteria to Software Richard Gruner, Copyright Protection for Expert Systems Letter from William J. Keating Letter from John M. Kernochan III. Recent law articles not yet in print: Laurie and Keefauver, Protection fo Computer Software Menell, An Analysis of the Scope of Protection for Application Programs Reichman, Implications of Copyright Protection for Commercialized University Research: The Case for Computer Software Samuelson, Why the "Look and Feel" of Software User Interfaces Should Not Be Protected By Copyright Yen, Did Pufnstuf Blow Out the First Amendment Candle?: A Chilling Look at the Idea/Expression Dichotomy and Copyright in a Work's "Total Concept and Feel" Deryfuss, New Information Products: A Challenge to Intellectual Property Theory (page 571; this has been omitted from the contents) IV. Relevant articles from nonlegal journals: Brooks, No Silver Bullet: Essence and Accidents of Software Engineering Pool, Whither Electronic Copyright V. Selected bibliography of legal commentary. International symposium on legal protection of computer software: Theme: legal protection of interfacesxclock -bg blue -hd yellowxclock -bg blue -hd yellowps Theme: legal protection of interfacesxclock -bg blue -hd yellowxclock -bg blue -hd yellow Theme: legal protection of interfacesxclock -bg blue -hd yellowxclock -bg blue -hd yellow procexclock -bg blue -hd yellowedings Oct 28-30, 1987 Second international symposium on legal protection of computer software: proceedings xclock -bg blue -hd yellow Nov 7-8, 1989 Theme: legal protection of interfacesxclock -bg blue -hd yellowxclock -bg blue -hd yellow Third international symposium on legal protection of computer software: handouts Dec 9-10, 1991 Theme: Law's lag behind fast advancing software Committee on commerce, science and transportation, U.S. Senate. Written statement of William H. Neukom on the competitiveness of the U.S. software industry November 13, 1991 Comittee on comerce, science and transportation. Statement submitted by Robert Holleyman, Managing director for the Business Software Alliance for the hearing on the competitiveness of the U.S. software industry. November 13, 1991. Notes: A news release from the Software Publishers Association is stapled to the begining of the report: U.S. Software Industry Urges Goverment to Foster International Competitiveness. U.S. Senate 102nd congress, 1st session Notes: This is a bill to ammend to title 18 to impose criminal sanctions for violation of software coprights. U.S. Senate 102nd Congress, 2nd session S. 2605 Notes: A Bill to harmonize U.S. Patent system with foreign systems. The House of Representatives 102nd Congress 2nd session H.R. 4978 Notes: A Bill to Harmonize the U.S. patent system with foreign patent systems. United States Appeals for the second circuit No. 762 August term 1991 Argued 1/9/1992 Docket Nos: 91-7893, 91-7935 Prepared statement of James P. Love Director, taxpayer Assets Project before the Joint Committee on printing on Goverment information as a public asset April 25 1991 =========================================================================== USENIX TUTORIAL =============== Computer software law: knowing your rights and obligations Tutorial T10, USENIX Winter 1992 Technical Conference, January 12, 1992 Contains slides and 200 pages of handouts. =========================================================================== COMM/ENT ======== Hastings Communications and Entertaiment Law Journal Comm/Ent Articles: Introduction to Computer Law by Leonard d. DuBoff Misuse: An Equitable Defense to Intellectual Property Infringement Actions by Alan R. Geraldi Presenting tecnically complex cases to lay Judges and Juries by Richard H Abramson Note: Lotus Developement v. Paperback software: the Over extension of copyright protection to functional aspects of Computer Software by Dag Johansen Special Feature: Against software patents: The League for programming freedom The Case against software Patents. Fourth annual Computer Law symposium Computer Software and Litigation Course Material Volume one and two =========================================================================== TANGENTIALLY RELATED ITEMS ========================== The case against user interface consistency by Jonathan Grudin Communications of the ACM, V32 #10, October 1989, pp 1164-1173 Doesn't really argue against consistency, only foolish consistency, such as keeping putty knives and butter knives together in the same drawer. Says that interfaces should be designed with the way people use them in mind. Information policies: A compilation of position statements, principles, statues, and other pertinent statements ARL/CAUSE/EDUCOM Coalition for Networked Information Includes the League's corporate charter, among other organizations from American Libraries Organization to Electronic Frontier Foundation to Software Publishers Association. Japan researcher says IBM, TI infringe patent by Junko Yoshida Electronic Engineering Times, August 5, 1991, pp 1, 76 Hardware patent. Digital audio terms agreed on by Brian Robinson Electronic Engineering Times, July 22, 1991, p 22 TI, Fujitsu in patent fight: Fujitsu claims Kilby patent doesn't apply to its chips by Ron Wilson and Loring Wirbel Electronic Engineering Times, July 22, 1991, pp 1,8 Hardware patent. New curbs on exports are sought: Military fears that new work stations could design arms by John Markoff New York Times, September 11, 1991, pp D1,D28 Employees' Inventions: a comparitive study; pg 152: The Legal rights of the employed inventor in the U.S.: a labor-management perspective. by Neal Orkin Lab Legacy: inventors are seeking bigger shares of gains from their succeses The Wall Street Journal 1/9/82 by David stipp Rewarding employee invention: time for change Harvard Business Review Jan Feb -1984 by Neal Orkin Secondary picketing under the Railway labor act: Lessons from the eastern airlines strike Labor Law journal july 1991 pg 425 by Neal Orkin and Mary Beth Ames Veblen, Schumpter and employee inventors: Lessons from the U.S. and Germany Managing Intelectual property december 1990 by Neal Orkin The whelanist Versus the SynerCommunists Copyright world March 1990 pg 28 by Neal orkin Reverse Enineering and the Computer Industry Presented by Davis,Davis,Orliss,& Monterey 1991 Melancholy Elephants A story dedicated to Virginia Heinlein Note: A story about when everything is copyrighted. =========================================================================== MATERIALS WE DON'T HAVE ======================= Forbes, 3 September 1990, p 46. article on how patents can have a chilling effect on development (p 46, 3 September 1990) Forbes, 3 September 1990, column by Peter Huber telling Lotus that L&FC will screw them in the long run. (He thinks they're a good idea in principle.) Picketers gather on Lotus' doorstep to protest firms' copyright claims by Evan O. Grossman (newspaper article, 1989 Lotus protest) Software, Copyright, and Competition: the ``look and feel'' of the law by Anthony Lawrence Clapes 1989, Quorum Books Review: Good background for the legal history, but Clapes is hopelessly biased toward extending broad copyright protection to software. Uses highly slanted language (narrower protection = "less well-treated" by the law); calls narrow protectionists names (Luddites, whiners); ad hominem attacks on personalities, morals, credentials, and intelligence of those who oppose his point of view. Annoying cutesy jokes and quotations. Discredits arguments by associating them with clearly guilty defendents (Franklin in _Apple v. Franklin_). Doesn't present opposing viewpoint's best arguments. Poor understanding (or poor and unnecessary explanation) of computer operation. Argues that since creativity is required and there is a broad range of expression, then the same protection should be accorded as is to a book, even to the "structure, logic, and flow" (a recurring theme). Doesn't consider other fields requiring creativity. Makes the book analogy again and again, but likes the poetry analogy even better. Neither of these works for me. Claims there is a legal precedent (tradition and correctness) for treating software as a book; any argument not to can only stem from policy motivations. (But precedents are brand-new; no one had software in mind before.) Argues that talking of "interface" doesn't make sense, since everything, down to individual instructions, is an interface. Thus, no copying whatever, at any level, should be permitted. Gemignani, Michael C. Law and the computer (1981) Gemignani, Michael C. legal guide to EDP management (1989) The first of these two books has been recommended as a good book on the intellectual property in software issue. Remer & Elias, Legal Care for Your Software Published by Nolo Press, 950 Parker St, Berkeley, CA 94710. REcommended as basic intro text on patents/copyrights. November, 1983 Byte magazine. The designers of the Apple Lisa GUI admit that they went over to Xerox PARC, looked at the GUI's there, went back to Apple and redid their GUI to look more like Xerox. United States Code, Annotated West Publishing Company Contains laws, commentary, summaries of cases relating to them, telling what the law really means in English, not legalese. However, this takes up over ten yards of library shelves (over 1000 pages on title 17 -- copyright -- alone) and so is a poor way to get to know the law. "Litigating the Validity and Infringement of Software Patents" by Anthony and Colwell Washington and Lee Law Review, volume 41, fall 1984. Joe Morris says, (Cf. Vault v. Quaid, in which my memory says the court held that the shrink-wrap "license contract" in PC software was unenforcable.) Anthony James Frybarger v. International Business Machines, Inc., Bebelli Software, Inc., and Nasir Gebelli IBM makes a blatant clone (called Mouser) of the Tricky Trapper game, but gets away with it because the similarities are "restricted to ideas and concepts only." article on Hyatt and his microprocessor patent: West magazine section, San Jose Mercury News, Sunday, 2-Dec-90 "Gilbert Who?" on p. 16, UnixWorld, Nov. 1990. It says that Gilbert Hyatt recieved a patent for the "brain of a computer" on August 30, 1990. He applied for the patent Dec. 28, 1970; this was earlier than filings from Intel and TI. Short article about AT&T getting tough on licencing its backing-store patent (issued 1985) to X software developers in London-based Unigram.X (a Unix-oriented weekly), February 18-22 1991 issue America By Design By David F. Noble Knopf, 1977 Not a basic text but an account of the history of US patent law, among other things. Noble argues that patent law has been converted from protecting inventors to protecting the corporations inventors work for. "Software Echo", the journal of the Scottish Software Community, issue 2. Article about British Technology Group (BTG); those funded by SERC (the British Science and Engineering Research Council - the main funding body for UK scientific academic research) must disclose patentable discoveries, including those in software (which, they say, are now patentable, even though they weren't before, due to recent court cases in the USA). Fritz Machlup and Edith Penrose, "The Patent Controversy in the Nineteenth Century," Journal of Economic History 10 (May 1950)--generally critical of patents Eric Schiff, _Industrialization without National Patents: The Netherlands, 1869-1919, Switzerland, 1850-1907_ (Princeton University Press, 1971)--suggests that those countries did just fine without a patent system H. I. Dutton, _The Patent System and Inventive Activity during the Industrial Revolution, 1750-1862_ (Manchester University Press, 1984)--argues that the patent system was important in English industrialization. Steven D. Lubar "The Patent Paradox," in _Science, Technology and Human Values_ 11, 1 (Winter 1986) pp. 90-94. "Patent It Yourself" by David Pressman (a patent attorney), published by Nolo Press (Berkeley, CA, 800-922-6656, 415-549-1976). This is a highly recommended (by lots of people) how-to book. Third edition appears January 1991. Richard C. Levy, "The Inventor's Desktop Companion" (Visible Ink Press, Detroit MI, 1991, ISBN 0-8103-7943-0). Dubious patent awards can rob you of software rights (Law report) Systems Integration, October 1991 Argues the anti-software-patent position. "Twelve Myths About Patent Protection for Software", The Computer Lawyer, May 1988 "The Patentability of Computer Programs: The PTO Guidelines, In re Grams and in re Iwahashi, THe Computer Lawyer, Dec. 1989. "Patentability of Computer-Related Inventions: A Criticism of the PTO's View on Algorithms.", The George Washington Law Review, Vol 54:812, August 1986. (Para 3 begins: "In Diamond v. Diehr, the Supreme Court first recognized as patentable an invention in which the sole novelty resided in the implementation of a computer program.") "Patentable Subject Matter, Mathematical Algorithms and Computer Programs", otherwise known as the "USPTO Guidelines for software patents" USPTO Official Gazette, Sept 5, 1989, pp5-12 Patent, Trademark & Copyright Journal, September 12, 1991, Vol. 42, No. 1047; Pg. 457, UNORIGINAL ELEMENTS OF WORK SHOULD NOT BE ELIMINATED FROM SIMILARITY TEST. APPLE COMPUTER, INC. v. MICROSOFT CORPORATION and HEWLETT- PACKARD COMPANY, No. C-88-20149-VRW, (U.S.N.CA.) 1991 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 16256 (August 14, 1991). COURT BACKTRACKS ON MAC ORIGINALITY; HP/MICROSOFT/APPLE COURT CASE FOCUSING ON THE ORIGINALITY OF THE MACINTOSH SCREEN DESIGN, MACWEEK, August 20, 1991, Pg. 3. The Law and Business of Computer Software by D. C. Toedt III Clark Boardman & Company, New York, NY $85 Blumer, A., Blumer, J., Ehrenfeucht, A., Haussler, D., and McConnell, R. Linear size finite automata for the set of all subwords of a word; an outlien of results. Bul. Eur. Assoc. Theor. Comp. Sci 21 (1983) 12-20. Possible prior art vs. spelling checking patent 4,783,761. Nerode, A. Linear automaton transformations. Proc. AMS 9 (1958), 541-544. Possible prior art vs. spelling checking patent 4,783,761. And: Andrew W. Appel and Guy J. Jacobson, The World's Fastest Scrabble Program, CACM 31 (1988) 5, 572-578,585. Refers to possible prior art vs. spelling checking patent 4,783,761. Articles by Soma and Smith in the Journal of the Patent and Trademark Office Society in 1989, as well as the Syrowik article in the Mich. Bar Journal, regarding numbers of software-related patents issued by the USPTO. Intellectual property issues in software National Research Council National Acadamy Press, 1991, 98 pp, $15 Pro-patent letters in Dr. Dobbs' Journal, November 1991 and December 1991. Microsoft-Apple battle building toward climax MacWeek 02.24.92 Vol 6 Number 8 pp 95-96. This article also references MacWeek Jan 27 (I assume 92). OTA report; the GPO order number is 052-003-01278-2. Order for $11 from Superintendent of Documents Government Printing Office Washington, D.C., 20402-9325 (202) 783-3238 Harlan Sexton says: I haven't seen it, but the newspaper article said that the report was sharply critical of the way the Patent Office handled software Patent Alternative Dispute Resolution Handbook by Tom Arnold with Michael G fletcher and Robert J. McAughan Jr. Local Variables: page-delimiter: "^\f\n===========================================================================\n" End: