_______________________________________________________ | | | PROGRAMMING FREEDOM - online edition | | | | March 1993 -==- Number 7 | | | | The Electronic Newsletter of | | The League for Programming Freedom | | 1 Kendall Sq #143, POBox #9171, Cambridge MA 02139 | | Send email to: lpf@uunet.uu.net | | Voicemail phone number: 617-621-7084 | | [Notice that the phone number has changed!] | | Leave your message and we'll return your call. | | Editor: Spike R. MacPhee (spiker@prep.ai.mit.edu) | | Managing Editor: Gordon Schantz | | Layout/Design: Susan Hofstader | | Reproduction of Programming Freedom via all | | electronic media is encouraged. | | To reproduce an individual signed article | | please contact the author for permission. | |_____________________________________________________| TABLE OF CONTENTS The LPF at COMDEX FALL 92........................Chris Hofstader Case Study: Losing Market Share Because of Patents...........Bob Sutterfield Excerpt from "A Statement of Principle"...........Bruce Sterling Another Allegedly Trivial Patent Case: Stac Vs. Microsoft ................................Ross Williams League Email adresses........................................... Purify - An Example of Patent Entrapment........................ Legal News: Sega Vs. Accolade, and Atari Vs.Nintendo Court Cases IBM vs. Australian Commissioner of Patents...................... LPF Boutique.................................................... +++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++ LPF at COMDEX FALL 93 Chris Hofstader, LPF Board member LPF members in attendance: Jack Larsen, Gordon Schantz, Randy Stankey, Mike Robert, Dean Anderson, Adam Richter, and myself. This was the first time that the LPF hosted a booth at a trade show focusing on the end user rather than programmers or academics. It is also the largest convention of any kind on the planet. Over 5000 of the people who visited our booth in the Riviera took a position paper! This means that the people in our booth spoke to over 1000 people per day. But more remarkable than the number of people to whom we were able to speak was the overwhelmingly positive reaction that we received. Talking amongst ourselves we could not remember more than 20 people who reacted unfavorably to our position. We could all remember hundreds who reacted extremely positively and suggested that they would likely join the LPF. Remarkably, the most supportive reactions came from leaders (Presidents and such) of small companies in the US and abroad. The LPF is very excited about future cooperation with this segment of the industry. Many members of the press stopped by including: a reporter from Reuters, AP and many other non industry and industry magazines and news services. Notables at COMDEX Fall '92 included the following: * Phillipe Kahn, President of Borland, was seen wearing a "fanged apple" badge and expressed support for our efforts. * At the Party/Rock concert sponsored by MicroGrafix everybody working in the Microsoft and Borland booths was wearing a fanged apple. * Author John Dvorak committed to doing "something big" (to be determined later) with us in 1993. This year, though, the big story is small. Small companies seem to love our position. +++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++ Case Study: Losing Market Share Because of Patents Bob Sutterfield (bob@roughy.MorningStar.Com) The specific subject: PPP FCS suboption negotiation technique The Point to Point Protocol (specified in RFCs 1331, 1332, and others) is a product of the Internet Engineering Task Force's Point to Point Working Group. It is the successor to SLIP (RFC 1055), and provides many useful facilities that were lacking in SLIP. One of the purposes of PPP was to create a single standard IETF-blessed inter-router framing protocol, so that routers from different manufacturers would easily be able to interoperate. One facility that's a standard (non-optional) part of PPP is that each frame carry a FCS (CRC Frame Check Sequence) field. By default, the FCS is 16 bits long, though peers may agree to use 32-bit FCS for improved error detection. The existing method for that agreement is for the administrators setting up the link to simply modify their configurations appropriately, by hand. This "prior agreement" method of verbal negotiation is inconsistent with PPP's goal of providing in-protocol methods to negotiate every variable that affects the connection (frame size, network-level addresses, compression methods, authentication, etc.) But there's a problem in that frames with one size FCS will be rejected by a PPP that's expecting another size FCS, so the peers will never be able to negotiate their way to agreement. So in December of 1990, Arthur Harvey of DEC published a Draft RFC describing a clever negotiation scheme: It's possible to create a valid 48-bit FCS for a frame, such that the first 16 bits will be a valid 16-bit FCS, and the first 32 bits will be a valid 32-bit FCS. This will allow the negotiation packets themselves to be exchanged without being discarded because they have a bad FCS value, since the sender's initial FCS size didn't match the receiver's. In late 1991, on the IETF PPP WG mailing list, a co-author of the Draft RFC mentioned that DEC has applied for a patent on this technique. Of course, he said that they plan to offer reasonable licensing terms, but the fact remains that the technique will likely soon be patented. This made PPP developers (like our company) nervous, because we don't know what those terms might be. Now in late 1992, DEC has published their terms: $5000 for the right to use their negotiation technique. We've implemented both 16-bit and 32-bit FCS in our product, but we may never implement DEC's negotiation scheme. Fortunately, during 1992, several PPP developers proposed alternatives to DEC's negotiation scheme. Any of these will make the optional improved error detection more conveniently available to users of wide-area networking hardware and software. Since DEC wants to charge a license fee, it's unlikely that any other vendors, or authors of free software, will implement it. Some more points of possible interest: The Draft RFC that was published in December 1990 contains no mention that a patent is pending on the negotiation technique. I have suggested that the author include such a warning for unsuspecting potential implementors like ourselves. If we had gotten around to including DEC's negotiation scheme in our product during the period when DEC hadn't yet told the PPP community that it was attempting to patent the technique, we would have been retroactively and unexpectedly dunned for license fees. Standards bodies should be particularly careful that their contributors don't attempt to use this sort of strategy. Also, in response to the 1991 DEC announcement of the pending patent, a good-hearted PPP developer made his 16/32-bit FCS negotiation code available for FTP, and placed the implementation in the public domain. So even the 16/32-bit negotiation implementation is free (as are implementations of the rest of PPP); only the spectre of the patent is stopping developers from providing the DEC-style negotiation facility to their users. DEC's negotiation scheme may turn out to be a DEC-specific enhancement to PPP, available only in DEC products. Everyone else in the PPP community will use some other negotiation method. In this case, the good news is that DEC's patent application has backfired: it gave DEC a black eye, and ensured that DEC's scheme would not be commonly implemented. +++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++ From "A Statement of Principle" by Bruce Sterling (Science Fiction Eye #10): "There's something wrong with the Information Society. There's something wrong with the idea that 'information' is a commodity like a desk or a chair. There's something wrong with patenting software algorithms. There's something direly mean spirited and ungenerous about inventing a language and then renting it out to other people to speak. There's something unprecedented and sinister in this process of creeping commodification of data and knowledge. A computer is something too close to the human brain for me to rest entirely content with someone patenting or copyrighting the process of its thought. There's something sick and unworkable about an economic system which has already spewed forth such a vast black market. I don't think democracy will thrive in a milieu where vast empires of data are encrypted, restricted, proprietary, confidential, top secret, and sensitive. I fear for the stability of a society that builds sand castles out of databits and tries to stop a real-world tide with royal commands." >Bruce Sterling is a so-called "cyberpunk" (among other descriptions) science-fiction writer, and an LPF member. +++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++ Another Allegedly Trivial Patent Case: Stac v.. Microsoft Ross Williams, ross@spam.adelaide.edu.au As many of you may know by now, Microsoft is being sued by Stac Electronics, who claim infringement of a data compression software patent. The patent is US Patent #4,701,745, the "Waterworth" patent, and has a priority date of 6 March 1985. (Its abstract and claims sections are available upon request from the LPF.) MS-DOS 6, due to be released in the first half of 1993, is the target of the Stac suit. MS-DOS 6 contains transparent disk compression, a key component of which is the data compression algorithm under dispute. It's not hard to work out why this patent lawsuit exists. By incorporating transparent disk compression into MS-DOS, Microsoft will, for the first time, be competing directly with third-party transparent disk compression products, and this is likely to precipitate a shake-out in the niche. This filtering down from third party products to the operating system is a natural progression in technological development, and should be applauded (encryption is probably next in line). However, it must be extremely threatening to companies such as Stac Electronics who live in this transitory niche. The patent turns out to be rather significant in a number of ways. Not only is it a very early software patent (1985), but it actually seems to cover most of the content of a LATER patent -- the "Gibson and Graybill" patent #5,049,881 (registered in 1990) -- so recently fought over by Intersecting Concepts and AdStor. This makes the Waterworth patent the king pin of a small tree of patents. Having myself re-invented and published in 1989-1991 an algorithm (my LZRW1 algorithm) very similar to that described in the Waterworth patent, I am completely convinced of the patent's triviality. In a nutshell, the patent covers the use of hashing to find matches in a sliding input window. This is a fundamental and obvious technique in data compression and it is ludicrous that it should be anywhere but in the public domain. In fact it is ludicrous that it should have ever even existed as a piece of intellectual property. The fact that a company as large as Microsoft is defendant in this case means that the stakes are high. If Microsoft wins then the whole tree of patents will fall. If Microsoft loses, then it is unlikely that the patent will be challenged again and, as a consequence, it will be massively strengthened. I believe that it is in the interests of all those involved with data compression (except of course you know who) to see that this patent is toppled. Because of my close involvement with these kinds of algorithms, and my sympathy with their cause in this instance, Microsoft is employing me on a contract basis to assist with the case. Currently I am collecting prior art. If you know of any prior art, or have any idea of where it might be obtained, I would be most grateful if you could contact me at my email address. ++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++ LPF email Lists. These lists are for LPF members only, although you may, of course, redistribute postings to your friends in the hopes of getting them to understand the LPF positions and possibly actively support the LPF by joining. The moderated mailing list: league-activists@prep.ai.mit.edu and its two sub-lists: league-activists-boston@prep.ai.mit.edu and league-activists-remote@prep.ai.mit.edu should be used only for members' requests for assistance in league projects, local or nationally, or for announcements from LPF. These lists are filtered by a moderator to: * insure this use; * minimize the number of messages; * remove items meant for the list's -request address; * forward items that should have been sent to another list. There may be a delay of up to 3 days for your message to be sent on L-act, so plan ahead for volunteer requests. League-tactics@prep.ai.mit.edu is for discussion of LPF directions and is not moderated. If you want to subscribe, change your eddress (email address), or be removed from either list, please use: league-activists-request@prep.ai.mit.edu or league-tactics-request@prep.ai.mit.edu. General questions about the LPF, and administrative questions about your membership or your email copy of the newsletter should still go to: lpf@uunet.uu.net. ++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++ READERS' FORUM/LEGAL NEWS "Purify": An example of patent entrapment in a techniques-patented program paper at a Usenix conference A recent Usenix conference had a paper which describes techniques that are being patented by the authors. This was revealed by the fact that listings of output from the program showed the words "patents pending". The program is called "purify" and it checks for storage leaks. There is nothing brilliant about the program--it is a different arrangement of commonplace ideas. In effect, the paper is just a sales presentation, since anyone who tried to use the ideas learned from the paper would be sued. The LPF has suggested to the Usenix board that they prevent such occurrences in the future by insisting that all authors sign a statement that they do not know of any attempt to patent what they are describing and won't patent it themselves. ----------------------------------------------------------------- IBM v. Australian Commissioner of Patents (PC Week (Australian), February 3, 1993, p 22): A software patent crisis? It's patently obvious! A little-noticed court case, now concluded, has paved the way for computer programs to be patented in Australia. This will have enormous implications for the our [sic] IT industry because it will mean that software developers will have to be wary when incorporating features into programs. It will also strengthen the hands of big computer companies like IBM, which now employs scores of patent attorneys to obtain money from small computer companies, if necessary by suing them. Back in 1991, IBM Australia applied for a patent on a method of making smooth curves on computer screens. The commissioner of patents rejected the application, arguing that the claimed invention was nothing more than a mathematical formula. But Federal Court judge Burchett held on December 13 1991 that the application was not for an abstract formula but for a new and inventive application - and was therefore patentable. The commissioner of patents decided to appeal the decision to the full Federal Court, but in August 1992 the appeal was withdrawn, so that the original judgement has been upheld. IBM versus Commissioner of Patents brings Australian law much closer to that of the US where the US Patent Office has been issuing more and more patents for programs - and even small bits of programs - much to the consternation of some elements of the software industry. >Tom Forester, senior lecturer, School of Computing & Information Technology at Griffith University, Brisbane. ++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++ LEGAL NEWS: SEGA v. ACCOLADE, ATARI v. NINTENDO [Excerpted from Technology Law Bulletin, January 1993, article by Lucash, Gesmer & Updegrove, sent by Jonathan ]: Reverse Engineering Software To Achieve Compatibility Is Fair Use Sega Enterprises Ltd. v. Accolade, Inc.: Accolade disassembled Sega's console ROM to discover the sequence of 25 bytes required as a "security code" by the Sega Genesis video game. Sega claimed that Accolade had violated their copyright on the console ROM software, but the 9th US Circuit Court of Appeals held that disassembly of a copyrighted work is fair use if "disassembly provides the only means of access to those elements of the code not protected by copyright and the copier has a legitimate reason for seeking such access." Sega was willing to license the code to Accolade only under an 'exclusive business relationship' [presumably, only to market their games on Sega systems], which the court found was unreasonable. Furthermore, the 25 bytes were found to be unprotected functional elements of the program. Atari Games Corp. v. Nintendo of America, Inc.: Atari also reverse-engineered the Nintendo console security system, but part of the means they used to do this was to obtain a copy of the (copyrighted) program which generated the security codes from the Copyright Office under false pretenses. Atari was thus held to have infringed Nintendo's copyright based on the fact that there were many different programs which would generate a password for Nintendo consoles. ++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++ LPF Boutique: Materials Available from the League Please send orders to: League for Programming Freedom One Kendall Square #143/PO Box 9171 Cambridge MA 02139. We don't take credit cards yet, but do take US currency in checks, money orders, or any of the brands of Travellers Checks. (Please don't send cash in the mail). Buttons: We have reprinted the famous "fanged apple" buttons. These buttons show the symbol of Apple computer with an alien snake's body and face. You can buy buttons by mail from the League, for $2 each, in quantities of at least three. We give out buttons at events, but ask for a donation. Stickers: We also have stickers showing Liberty Empowering the Programmer, with the League's name and address. You can order stickers by mail from the League at $5 for 10 stickers; for larger orders, phone us to discuss a price. We hand them out free when it is convenient, such as at our events, but since mailing packages to individuals costs money, we want to make it an opportunity to raise funds. Post stickers at eye level and separated from other posted articles, to make them easy to see. The stickers are not made to survive rain. Liberty Postcards: We also have postcards showing Liberty Empowering the Programmer, with the League's name and address. $5.00 for 10; call for volume discount.. Large Liberty Posters: We have a few posters with the same image that is on the stickers, approximately 2.5 ft by 1.5 ft. They are $4 each and $4 total shipping and handling in the US for the first one to five posters, and $2 shipping/handling for each additional five. We also have a Postscript file of the Liberty image available at the FTP sites under the name: /pub/lpf/articles/liberty.ps.Z for you to download; it's a 100k file. Coffee Mugs: Our coffee mugs have the Fanged Apple design in full color on one side and "League for Programming Freedom" on the other. They hold twelve ounces and are microwave safe. You can order a mug for $15, nonmembers $17, plus $3.00 shipping and handling. They are now in stock. Note the price increase. T-Shirts: Michael Ernst has produced t-shirts with Liberty and "League for Programming Freedom" on the front and "Innovate, Don't Litigate" on the back. (The back slogan will change from time to time.) You can order shirts by mail from the League for $10, nonmembers $12, plus $2 for shipping and handling. Available colors are yellow, light blue and ecru; if you specify a color, we will assume you would rather have another color than no shirt. If you want a chosen color or nothing, say so explicitly. Please specify the shirt size! (M, L or XL.) We are sold out of XL shirts with this back-slogan. We have printed the next version of the LPF t-shirt. The new back-slogan is "You'll pay for this" with an XORed cursor over the word "this", and "League for Programming Freedom" underneath. The front is the same as the older shirt, and the colors are yellow, light blue, and off-white in M, L, and XL sizes. Position Papers and Memberships: We will send anyone a copy of the League position papers. If you want other copies to hand out at an event, we'll send you as many as you need. Please discuss your plans with us. One-year memberships are $42 for professionals, $10.50 for students, and $21 for others. The dues are $100 for an institution with up to three employees, $250 for an institution with four to nine employees, and $500 for an institution with ten or more employees. For $5000, an institution can be a sponsor rather than a member. League Papers On-line: You can retrieve LPF written materials in TeXinfo format by anonymous ftp from prep.ai.mit.edu in the directory /pub/lpf. These include the position papers, all back issues of our newsletter Programming Freedom membership form, handouts, friends of the court briefs, and articles about the LPF's issues of concern. In addition to the above, Joe Wells has PostScript, DVI, plain text, and Info format versions of the papers "Against User Interface Copyright" (look-and-feel) and "Against Software Patents" (patents) available for FTP from the location: cs.bu.edu:pub/jbw/lpf/ League Video Cassettes: We have a four-hour video tape of two of Richard Stallman's speeches for the LPF. If you'd like to give LPF speeches, we can send you a copy of this tape to give you an example to learn from. If you'd like copies for another purpose, we can send them for $20 each (includes $4 shipping and handling.) They are now available in VHS/NTSC format only. ++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++ The LPF Needs Volunteers The LPF has been becoming increasingly active as we grow and mature as an organization. It seems however that the more the LPF accomplishes, the more we need to do. As most of you know, the LPF only has one part time administrative person and one other paid staffer to work on our publications. The rest of our work, from our directors on down to people who hand out stickers at trade shows, is all done by volunteers. The LPF 's bi-monthly publication, which you are holding in your hand, takes a lot of work to produce. This can be done by our staffers but the content must come from you. We invite you to submit anything you think may be of interest to the membership--opinion, case studies, current events, absurd-patent-examples and other relevant humor, etc. If we receive it by the deadline and our editors deem it worthy, you may see in one one of our upcoming issues: April 28 draft articles due June 1 newsletter mailed June 28 draft articles due August 1 newsletter mailed August 28 draft articles due October 1 newsletter mailed October 28 draft articles due December 1 newsletter mailed December 28 draft articles due February 1 newsletter mailed