Copy Link
Add to Bookmark
Report
Computer Undergroud Digest Vol. 05 Issue 84
Computer underground Digest Sun Nov 7 1993 Volume 5 : Issue 84
ISSN 1004-042X
Editors: Jim Thomas and Gordon Meyer (TK0JUT2@NIU.BITNET)
Archivist: Brendan Kehoe
Shadow-Archivists: Dan Carosone / Paul Southworth
Ralph Sims / Jyrki Kuoppala
Ian Dickinson
Copy Eatitor: Etaoin Shrdlu, III
CONTENTS, #5.84 (Nov 7 1993)
File 1--Computers, Freedom, and Privacy '94 Conference
File 2--CFP '94 Scholarship Announcements
File 3--Korea 94: Call for Papers
File 4--CPSR NII Paper
File 5--DES: Broken!
File 6--NAFTA mandates software patents (fwd)
File 7--Phiber Optik Sentenced to One Year in Prison
Cu-Digest is a weekly electronic journal/newsletter. Subscriptions are
available at no cost electronically from tk0jut2@mvs.cso.niu.edu. The
editors may be contacted by voice (815-753-0303), fax (815-753-6302)
or U.S. mail at: Jim Thomas, Department of Sociology, NIU, DeKalb, IL
60115.
Issues of CuD can also be found in the Usenet comp.society.cu-digest
news group; on CompuServe in DL0 and DL4 of the IBMBBS SIG, DL1 of
LAWSIG, and DL1 of TELECOM; on GEnie in the PF*NPC RT
libraries and in the VIRUS/SECURITY library; from America Online in
the PC Telecom forum under "computing newsletters;"
On Delphi in the General Discussion database of the Internet SIG;
on the PC-EXEC BBS at (414) 789-4210; and on: Rune Stone BBS (IIRG
WHQ) (203) 832-8441 NUP:Conspiracy; RIPCO BBS (312) 528-5020
CuD is also available via Fidonet File Request from 1:11/70; unlisted
nodes and points welcome.
EUROPE: from the ComNet in LUXEMBOURG BBS (++352) 466893;
In ITALY: Bits against the Empire BBS: +39-461-980493
ANONYMOUS FTP SITES:
AUSTRALIA: ftp.ee.mu.oz.au (128.250.77.2) in /pub/text/CuD.
EUROPE: ftp.funet.fi in pub/doc/cud. (Finland)
UNITED STATES:
aql.gatech.edu (128.61.10.53) in /pub/eff/cud
etext.archive.umich.edu (141.211.164.18) in /pub/CuD/cud
ftp.eff.org (192.88.144.4) in /pub/cud
halcyon.com( 202.135.191.2) in /pub/mirror/cud
ftp.warwick.ac.uk in pub/cud (United Kingdom)
COMPUTER UNDERGROUND DIGEST is an open forum dedicated to sharing
information among computerists and to the presentation and debate of
diverse views. CuD material may be reprinted for non-profit as long
as the source is cited. Authors hold a presumptive copyright, and
they should be contacted for reprint permission. It is assumed that
non-personal mail to the moderators may be reprinted unless otherwise
specified. Readers are encouraged to submit reasoned articles
relating to computer culture and communication. Articles are
preferred to short responses. Please avoid quoting previous posts
unless absolutely necessary.
DISCLAIMER: The views represented herein do not necessarily represent
the views of the moderators. Digest contributors assume all
responsibility for ensuring that articles submitted do not
violate copyright protections.
----------------------------------------------------------------------
Date: 1 Nov 93 09:59:46 CST
From: 7TRUBOW@JMLS.EDU
Subject: File 1--Computers, Freedom, and Privacy '94 Conference
((MODERATORS' NOTE: We will re-run the CFP '94 information
periodically to remind readers that, although it will be held in
March, that various deadlines for proposals, scholarships, and paper
competition loom)).
COMPUTERS, FREEDOM, AND PRIVACY '94
Conference Announcement
Scholarships, Writing Competition Notice
23-26 March 1994, Chicago, Il.
The fourth annual conference, "Computers, Freedom, and
Privacy," (CFP'94) will be held in Chicago, Il., March 23-26, 1994.
The conference is hosted by The John Marshall Law School; George B.
Trubow, professor of law and director of the Center for Informatics
Law at John Marshall, is general chair of the conference. The
program is sponsored jointly by these Association for Computing
Machinery (ACM) Special Interest Groups: Communications (SIGCOMM);
Computers and Society (SIGCAS); Security, Audit and Control
(SIGSAC).
The advance of computer and communications technologies holds
great promise for individuals and society. From conveniences for
consumers and efficiencies in commerce to improved public health
and safety and increased participation in government and community,
these technologies are fundamentally transforming our environment
and our lives.
At the same time, these technologies present challenges to the
idea of a free and open society. Personal privacy and corporate
security is at risk from invasions by high-tech surveillance and
monitoring; a myriad of personal information data bases expose
private life to constant scrutiny; new forms of illegal activity
may threaten the traditional barriers between citizen and state and
present new tests of Constitutional protection; geographic
boundaries of state and nation may be recast by information
exchange that knows no boundaries in global data networks.
CFP'94 will assemble experts, advocates and interest groups
from diverse perspectives and disciplines to consider freedom and
privacy in today's "information society. Tutorials will be offered
on March 23, 1994, from 9:00 a.m. - noon and 2:00 - 500 p.m. The
conference program is Thursday, March 24, through Saturday, March
26, 1994, and will examine the potential benefits and burdens of
new information and communications technologies and consider ways
in which society can enjoy the benefits while minimizing negative
implications.
STUDENT PAPER COMPETITION
Full time college or graduate students may enter the student
paper competition. Papers must not exceed 3000 words and should
address the impact of computer and telecommunications technologies
on freedom and privacy in society. Winners will receive financial
support to attend the conference and present their papers. All
papers should be submitted by December 15, 1993, (either as
straight text via e-mail or 6 printed copies) to: Prof. Eugene
Spafford, Department of Computer Science, Purdue University, West
Lafayette, IN 47907-2004. E-Mail: spaf@cs.purdue.edu; Voice:
317-494-7825
SCHOLARSHIPS
The Chair for scholarships is John McMullen, assisted by Jim
Thomas, Sociology, Northern Illinois University, DeKalb, IL.
60115-2854. For more information, contact John McMullen
(mcmullen@well.sf.ca.us). Scholarships will cover only the cost of the
registration fee, which includes 3 luncheons, 2 receptions, 2 dinners
and conference materials.
CONFERENCE REGISTRATION INFORMATION
Registration fees are as follows:
If paid by: 1/31/94 3/15/94 4/23/94
Early Regular Late
Tutorial $145 $175 $210
Conference 315 370 420
NOTE: ACM members (give membership number) and John Marshall Alumni
(give graduation date) receive a $10 discount from Tutorial and $15
discount from Conference fees.
CONFERENCE REGISTRATION: Inquiries regarding registration should be
directed to RoseMarie Knight, Registration Chair, at the JMLS
address above; her voice number is 312-987-1420; E-mail,
6rknight@jmls.edu.
CONFERENCE INFORMATION: Communications regarding the conference
should be sent to: CFP'94, The John Marshall Law School, 315 S.
Plymouth Ct., Chicago, IL 60604-3907
(Voice: 312-987-1419; Fax: 312-427-8307; E-mail: CFP94@jmls.edu)
ROOM RESERVATIONS: The Palmer House Hilton, located in Chicago's
"loop," and only about a block from The John Marshall Law School,
is the conference headquarters. Room reservations only should be
made directly with the hotel, mentioning "CFP'94" to get the
special conference rate of $99.00, plus tax. (17 E. Monroe.,
Chicago, Il., 60603, Tel: 312-726-7500; 1-800-HILTONS; Fax
312-263-2556)
NOTE: More specific information about conference program
content will be available December 1, 1993.
***********
George B. Trubow, Professor of Law
Director, Center for Informatics Law
The John Marshall Law School
315 S. Plymouth Ct.
Chicago, IL 60604-3907
Fax: 312-427-8307; Voice: 312-987-1445
E-mail: 7trubow@jmls.edu
------------------------------
Date: Mon, 01 Nov 93 10:00:42 EST
From: mcmullen@MINDVOX.PHANTOM.COM(John F. McMullen)
Subject: File 2--CFP '94 Scholarship Announcements
The Conference on Computers, Freedom & Privacy (CFP'94) is pleased to
announce that it will once again provide a number of full tuition
scholarships for attendance at the conference. The conference will be
held in Chicago, IL from March 23rd through March 26th, 1995 and will
be hosted by the John Marshall Law School under the chairmanship of
George Trubow.
The conference traditionally attracts an extremely diverse group of
persons concerned with issues relating to the rapid development of the
"information society"; civil libertarians, information providers, law
enforcement personnel, privacy advocates, "hackers", sociologists,
educators and students, computer professionals, cryptography
advocates, government policy makers and other interested parties have
all played major roles in the three previous conference.
Speakers at previous conferences have included Electronic Frontier
Foundation (EFF) co-founders John Perry Barlow and Mitch Kapor, FBI
Deputy Director William A. "Al" Bayse, writer Bruce Sterling, privacy
advocate Simon Davies, Harvard University law professor Lawrence
Tribe, hacker "Phiber Optik", Georgetown University's Dorothy Denning,
"Cuckoo's Egg" author Clifford Stoll, Prodigy counsel George Perry,
USA Today founder Al Neuwith, former FCC Chairman Nicholas Johnson,
Computer Professionals for Social Responsibility (CPSR)'s Marc
Rotenberg, Arizona prosecutor Gail Thackeray, and Bay Area Women in
Computing's Judi Clark.
The scholarships are intended to provide access to the conference to
those that would like to attend the conference but are unable to
afford the tuition. They are available to undergraduate and graduate
students in any discipline (previous student attendees have come from
computer science, law, sociology, liberal arts, journalism, and
womens' studies backgrounds), law enforcement personnel, hackers,
social scientists, and others interested in the future of the
information society.
Persons interested in a scholarship should send the following
information (e-mail greatly preferred) to:
John F. McMullen
CFP'94 Scholarship Chair
Perry Street
Jefferson Valley, NY 10535
mcmullen@panix.com
(914) 245-2734 (voice)
(914) 245-8464 (fax)
1. Personal Information -- Name, Addresses (including e-mail), Phone
Numbers, School and/or Business Affiliation
2. Short Statement explaining what the applicant helps to get from
CFP'94 and what impact that attendance may have in the applicant's
community or future work.
3. Stipulation that the applicant understands that he/she is
responsible for transportation and lodging expenses related to the
conference. The scholarship includes tuition and those meals included
with the conference.
4. Stipulation that the applicant would not be able to attend the
conference if a scholarship is not granted.
5. Stipulation that the applicant, if granted a scholarship, will
attend the conference.
6. Stipulation that the applicant, if granted a scholarship, will
provide a written critique of the conference to the scholarship
committee by April 30, 1994.
Applications will be accepted until December 31, 1993 and scholarship
winners will be notified by approximately February 1, 1994.
Please contact John McMullen at the above e-mail address or phone
numbers with any questions.
John F. McMullen mcmullen@mindvox.phantom.com Consultant,
knxd@maristb.bitnet mcmullen@well.sf.ca.us Writer,
------------------------------
Date: Sun, 24 Oct 1993 19:23:21 CDT
From: Joel Sax <jsax@IGC.APC.ORG>
Subject: File 3--Korea 94: Call for Papers
+------------------------Original message----------------------------
Respond to hfrederick@igc.apc.org.
Subject--Korea 94*Intl Communication*Call for Papers
[Please excuse if you have received this by other channels.
Please feel free to cross-post as appropriate. Howard Frederick]
Call for Papers
International Communication Section
INTERNATIONAL ASSOCIATION
FOR MASS COMMUNICATION RESEARCH
"Communication in the New Millennium:
Communication Technology for Humanity"
July 3-8, 1994, Seoul, Korea
The International Association for Mass Communication Research (IAMCR)
is the largest professional organization in its field. The Association has
consultative status with various United Nations bodies and cooperates
closely with regional communication research associations.
The conference theme COMMUNICATION IN THE NEW MILLENNIUM:
COMMUNICATION TECHNOLOGY FOR HUMANITY reminds us that the technology and
the process of human communication within and between national societies is
essential for building a shared world that protects both the biosphere and
the sociosphere.
All correspondence and submissions shall be directed to the Section
convenor: Howard H. Frederick, School of International Service, The
American University, Washington, DC 20016 USA. Office: +1-202-885-1635
Fax: +1-202-885-2494 Email: hfrederick@igc.apc.org
With the author's permission, papers accepted for the Section's panels
will be recommended for appropriate issues of _Journal of International
Communication_.
PANELS OF THE INTERNATIONAL COMMUNICATION SECTION
INTERNATIONAL RELATIONS AND THE TECHNOLOGIES OF INTERNATIONAL
COMMUNICATION. Examines the impact global channels of communication on
international relations.
INTERNATIONAL COMMUNICATION AND INTERNATIONAL CONFLICT: LESSONS FROM
RECENT HISTORY. Examines how mass media coverage has affected
international crises, with a special focus on events in Asia. Papers are
especially invited on Bosnia, Cambodia, Somalia, Korea, Palestine, East
Timor.
INTERNATIONAL BROADCASTING AND INTERNATIONAL RELATIONS. Explores the the
role of international broadcasting in international affairs.
THE MACBRIDE MOVEMENT AND THE EVOLVING RIGHT TO COMMUNICATE Investigates
the movement for a new international information and communication order,
human rights, and especially the evolving right to communicate. Assesses
the progress and prospects of the movement toward a new world information
and communication order.
GLOBAL COMMUNICATION AS A FIELD OF RESEARCH AND EDUCATION IN THE POST COLD
WAR ERA Questions the traditional definitions of international
communication and its impact on communication education in light of the
globalization of all communication research.
THE CULTURAL AND POLITICAL CONTEXT OF TELECOMMUNICATIONS POLICY: ASIAN
CONCERNS. Probes the issues and controversies surrounding regional and
international telecommunications policy with a special focus on Asia.
OLYMPISM AND GLOBAL CIVIL SOCIETY. Explores the social and political
impact of media channels on sports, and especially the Olympic Games.
COMPUTERS AND INTERNATIONAL COMMUNICATIONS. Examines the growing impact of
global computer networks on the field of international communications.
JOURNAL OF INTERNATIONAL COMMUNICATION. Discusses how the International
Communication Section can assist the emergence of this new academic
journal.
COMMUNICATION AND CULTURAL INDUSTRIES. Examines role of entertainment
programming in national development with a focus on soap opera/telenovelas,
serial fiction, infotainment, co-productions, and reality-based series.
The International Communication Section will hold elections in Korea for a
new President/Convenor. People who are interested in running may send
their names to Ingrid Schulze by January 15 (see address below) and should
include a curriculum vita and a 250-word statement of intention.
Candidates nominations will be accepted until July 1994.
The International Communication Section is currently led by a President
(Howard Frederick, see above) and three Vice Presidents: Abbas Malek,
Department of Radio-Television-Film, Howard University, School of
Communications, Washington DC 20059 USA +1-202-806-7927 (o) +1-703-849-0019
(h) +1-202-483-5352 (f) email: amalek@auvm.american.edu ; Ingrid Schulze
Schneider, Universidad Complutense, Facultad de C.C.I.I, Avda. Complutense,
S/N, Madrid 28040 Spain +34-1-394-2131 (o) +34-1-859-9218 (h) +34-1-859-
9692 (f) ; Anantha Babbili, Texas Christian University, Department of
Journalism, Box 32930, Fort Worth TX 76129 USA +1-817-921-7425 (o) +1-817-
732-2990 (h) +1-817-921-7133 (f) email: babbili@gamma.is.tcu.edu
How to respond to the Calls for Papers
Abstracts (2 pages or about 800 words) should be sent before 15 January
1994 to the convenor.
At the same time the author should send a Brief Abstract (200 words) to the
convenor. Brief Abstracts of accepted papers will be published in the "Book
of Abstracts" which all conference participants will receive in Seoul.
The convenors will select Papers to be presented, and inform the authors
accordingly by 15 February 1994. At the same time convenors should send
Brief Abstracts of accepted papers to the editor of the Seoul "Book of
Abstracts", IAMCR Secretary General Robin Cheesman.
For Brief Abstracts use the form included in the October IAMCR Newsletter.
Or you may send your Brief Abstract by e-mail (preferred).
Final papers have to reach convenors not later than 30 March 1994.
Abstracts and Papers can be sent by mail or when appropriate by e-mail. Do
not use fax, since the quality of fax is not good enough for reproduction
and we do not retype them.
------------------------------
From: Dave Banisar <banisar@WASHOFC.CPSR.ORG>
Date: Mon, 25 Oct 1993 21:14:55 EST
Subject: File 4--CPSR NII Paper
CPSR NII Paper
FOR IMMEDIATE RELEASE
Contact:
Todd Newman (CA) 415-390-1614
Eric Roberts (CA) 415-723-3642
Coralee Whitcomb (MA) 617-356-4309
Marc Rotenberg (D.C.) 202-544-9240
COMPUTER SCIENTISTS RAISE SOCIAL AND DESIGN CONCERNS
ABOUT THE INFORMATION HIGHWAY
Palo Alto, Calif., October 25, 1993 -- In the wake of sudden
corporate mergers and rapid technological developments, Computer
Professionals for Social Responsibility (CPSR) today voiced concern
that the planned information superhighway will not realize its full
potential. The public interest organization put forward specific
guidelines for the National Information Infrastructure (NII) in a
paper titled, "Serving the Community: A Public-Interest Vision of
the National Information Infrastructure." Urging the Clinton
Administration to move quickly to adopt these principles, CPSR
President Eric Roberts said, "Although there is widespread agreement
on general goals, there is no specific plan to ensure that these goals
are met."
"It is much easier to state a vision than to achieve it, " said Dr.
Roberts, who is also Associate Chair of the Computer Science
department at Stanford University. "And there are many dangers on
the horizon that threaten to compromise the value of the NII as a
resource for the public.
"For example, if a small number of companies dominate the market,
we're in danger of stifling competition and innovation on the
network. If those same companies control the programming, then
open and diverse speech is limited. If pricing structures do not cover
universal service, the average person and the poor will be struggling
to use the backroads of the information highway. If privacy isn't
protected, your TV could keep more detailed records of your finances
than the IRS. And, if the NII is not designed to allow everyone to
communicate freely and to publish their own contributions, it could
become nothing more than a medium for delivering 500-channel
television, with interactivity limited to home-shopping and trying to
guess the next play during sporting events."
CPSR's paper expands on these dangers and makes specific policy and
technical recommendations for the newly formed Information
Infrastructure Task Force. The Task Force is expected to coordinate
network policy for the Clinton Administration.
"In its 'Agenda for Action' document, the Administration has set forth
a positive vision of what the NII can be," said Dr. Roberts. "To
achieve that vision, however, the government must play a major role
in the design, development, and regulation of the network." CPSR
recommends that the Administration adopt the following policies:
o Promote widespread economic benefits by evaluating the NII's
economic success using measures that reflect its impact on the
society as a whole, not merely the profits of NII investors and
service providers.
o Evaluate the social impact of the NII by conducting periodic
reviews as the NII is implemented and used to guarantee that it
continues to serve the public interest.
o Guarantee equitable and universal access through an appropriate
mix of legislation, regulation, taxation, and direct subsidies.
o Promote the development of a vital civic sector by ensuring
resources, training, and support for public spaces within the NII
where citizens can pursue noncommercial activities.
o Promote a diverse and competitive marketplace in terms of the
content carried over the NII.
o Provide access to government services and information over the
NII.
o Encourage democratic participation by ensuring full public
disclosure, and actively promoting democratic decision-making
and public participation in all stages of the development process.
o Actively facilitate the seamless connection of America's NII with
the information infrastructures of other nations by working to
resolve such issues as security, censorship, tariffs, and privacy.
o Guarantee the functional integrity of the NII by establishing
critical technical requirements including ease of use, widespread
availability, full functionality, high reliability, adequate privacy
protection, and evolutionary expansion.
The recommendations follow from a yearlong review of the NII
conducted by CPSR. The process included collecting more than 1,200
suggestions for NII policy from network users across the country,
drafting a report, holding special chapter meetings on the NII in
Berkeley, Boston, Seattle, and Washington, D.C., and having a
multiple-draft review process by the membership. Final changes
to the report were made at the annual meeting of CPSR, where the
report was adopted unanimously by the CPSR Board of Directors.
Dr. Roberts noted that he was very pleased by the level of
participation in the NII report. "The computer community knows
that the NII is the critical technological issue facing the United States
today. Our members were extremely responsive when we asked
them to participate in this project, because they understand from
their own experience how much the NII has to offer."
CPSR also worked closely with the Telecommunications Policy
Roundtable (TPR), a coalition of more than sixty nonprofit, consumer,
labor and civil rights organizations based in Washington, DC. CPSR's
paper endorses the principles set forth by TPR. TPR will unveil its
founding principles in a press conference, Tuesday, October 26th at
10:00 a.m. at the National Press Club in Washington, D.C.
CPSR is planning a conference next April in Cambridge,
Massachusetts, on the future of the NII, The Directions and
Implications of Advanced Computing. The conference will
investigate at a more specific level how to achieve the principles
in the CPSR report.
Founded in 1981, CPSR is a national, nonprofit, public interest
organization of computer professionals and others concerned with
the impact of computer technology on society. With offices in Palo
Alto, California, and Washington D.C., and 22 chapters across the
country, CPSR works to encourage public discussion of decisions
involving the use of computers in systems critical to society and to
challenge the assumption that technology alone can solve political
and social problems.
CPSR's NII paper is available electronically by sending email to
listserv@cpsr.org. In the message write the command
"GET CPSR NII_POLICY" The paper will automatically be mailed to
you. You can also FTP/WAIS/Gopher cpsr.org/nii/cpsr_nii_policy.txt.
For a hard copy of the paper or for more information about CPSR,
call 415-322-3778 or write to cpsr@cpsr.org. For information about
the Telecommunications Policy Roundtable, contact Jeff Chester at
202-628-2620 or cme@access.digex.net.
------------------------------
Date: Fri, 29 Oct 1993 02:03:24 -0800
From: jonpugh@NETCOM.COM(Jon Pugh)
Subject: File 5--DES: Broken!
I would like to thank everyone who responded to my query regarding a
report of DES being broken. I would especially like to thank Charles
Mattair <mattair@synercom.hounix.org> for sending me Michael Wiener's
entire paper ala PostScript. Mr. Wiener is employed by Bell-Northern
Research in Ontario, Canada. Here is the abstract for his paper:
"Abstract. Despite recent improvements in analytic techniques for
attacking the Data Encryption Standard (DES), exhaustive key search
remains the most practical and efficient attack. Key search is
becoming alarmingly practical. We show how to build an exhaustive DES
key search machine for $1 million that can f ind a key in 3.5 hours on
average. The design for such a machine is described in detail for the
purpose of assessing the resistance of DES to an exhaustive attack.
This design is based on mature technology to avoid making guesses
about future capabilities. With this approach, DES keys can be found
one to two orders of magnitude faster than other recently proposed
designs. The basic machine design can be adapted to attack the
standard DES modes of operation for a small penalty in running time.
The issues of development cost and machine reliability are examined as
well. In light of this work, it would be prudent in many applications
to use DES in a triple-encryption mode."
The paper describes the basic search as beginning from a
plaintext-ciphertext pair and trying keys until one is found which
will turn the plaintext into the cyphertext. The basis for the
technique's speed is that neither the plaintext or cyphertext needs to
be output and thus IO bottlenecks are removed. This technique does
not directly attack a given ciphertext without a corresponding
plaintext and thus does not directly attempt to break a DES encrypted
cyphertext.
Feel free to correct me if I am wrong, but I don't see the
applicability of this machine in decrypting DES encoded information
unless one is in possession of a "Rosetta Stone" using the same key,
and I think the chances of that are highly unlikely.
The intent of the paper seems to be merely to indicate that DES is
within the range of being broken. It closes with a proposal that all
serious DES encryption be done in "triple-encryption mode". This is
where you encode with key 1, decode with key 2 and encode with key 3.
The middle operation seems to be reversed merely to give the operation
the effect of being the same as a single DES encryption when the 3
keys are identical, but to get the proper effect the three keys should
be different and unrelated.
Thus, my initial take from the short report I saw before was
misleading. DES is not really "broken" in that there is still no way
to take an arbitrary cipertext and turn it into the proper plaintext
in the 3.5 hours mentioned in the paper.
Once again, feel free to correct me if I am wrong. I will be making
the paper available to the CuD archive and others once I get my
anonymous ftp directory set up. It is 424K of PostScript and much too
large to mail reliably (although I only lost 1 character when Charles
mailed it to me in 10 parts). ;)
------------------------------
Date: Mon, 1 Nov 1993 16:57:40 -1200
From: ygoland@SEAS.UCLA.EDU
Subject: File 6--NAFTA mandates software patents (fwd)
From--lpf@uunet.uu.net (The League for Programming Freedom)
Sender--friedman@frob.com
Subject--NAFTA mandates software patents
Date--Fri, 29 Oct 93 20:57:36 -0400
[Please post this widely, wherever appropriate.
The LPF is also collecting signatures from famous people who would be
willing to "lend their names". We plan to send this piece to Congress and
elsewhere. If you're interested, please contact lpf@uunet.uu.net.]
NAFTA and Software Patents
by the League for Programming Freedom
If you believe software patents are harmful to software
development--or that the patent system for software has problems and
needs to be changed--or if you are *not yet sure*--then you need to be
concerned about NAFTA now.
Opposition to software patents seems to be the majority view in our
field. Two ACM surveys at well-attended conferences (SIGCHI and
SIGGRAPH) showed a large majority of attendees entirely opposed to
software patents. Most of the software companies applying for patents
say their actions are for defensive purposes, because they fear being
attacked with patents.
Among those not prepared to advocate a system of no patents in
software--the system the US had until a decade ago--many agree that
some change needs to be made. Even the Patent Office has recognized
there is a problem, and has scheduled hearings for 1994. But before
the hearings start, NAFTA may make them futile. NAFTA probably
directly or indirectly prohibits all the proposed approaches for
addressing the problem.
Those of us entirely opposed to software patents would like to
eliminate them. There are two ways of doing this. One is to exempt
software from the patent system. NAFTA clearly bars such a change, by
requiring that patents apply to products of any kind.
Another way is not to issue patents that cover computational steps
alone. (This approach would not do anything about the thousands of
existing software patents.) NAFTA does not directly address this sort
of rule, but the "all fields of technology" requirement may rule out
this approach. (There is no way to find out for certain now; what we
can predict is that IBM will argue that it is ruled out.)
On the other hand, if we do not abolish software patents entirely, we
could reduce their harmful impact by changing other aspects of the
software patent system.
For example, some have proposed that patents on software should last
just a few years, since a program a few years old is obsolete for most
commercial purposes. But NAFTA requires patents to last at least
seventeen years.
An automatic mandatory licensing system could eliminate most of the
problems that patents cause. However, NAFTA forbids any sort of
automatic mandatory licensing.
The conclusion: if you believe that software patents cause problems
and that a change in the patent system *might* be necessary for
software, then join us now in calling for the rejection of NAFTA as it
stands, so that this part can be changed.
What you should do is write or phone your senators and representative.
A brief letter in your own words is the most effective way to
communicate your views to them. The following addresses work for all
federal legislators:
Honorable ...
US Senate
Washington DC 20510
Honorable ...
US House of Representatives
Washington DC 20515
It is also useful to send a copy to Representative Gephardt (one of
the leading opponents of NAFTA as it stands) as well as your own
elected officials. If you write your letter by computer, it would be
helpful to send a copy by email to lpf@uunet.uu.net. We could show
these copies on other occasions such as when the Patent Office
reconsiders the issue.
A second proposed treaty, GATT (General Agreement on Tariffs and
Trade), has even stronger requirements on patents. So it would be
useful to mention in your letter that you are concerned about GATT as
well.
The success of the Liberal party in Canada gives us a reprieve--a
chance for changing NAFTA. It's up to us to make sure this part of
NAFTA is reconsidered. Let's not waste this opportunity.
For those interested in checking these conclusions, the text of the
patents section of NAFTA appears below.
%
Article 1709: Patents
[Text as received from U.S. government email server, with whitespace
cleaned up.]
1. Subject to paragraphs 2 and 3, each Party shall make patents
available for any inventions, whether products or processes, in all
fields of technology, provided that such inventions are new, result
from an inventive step and are capable of industrial application. For
purposes of this Article, a Party may deem the terms "inventive step"
and "capable of industrial application" to be synonymous with the
terms "non-obvious" and "useful", respectively.
2. A Party may exclude from patentability inventions if
preventing in its territory the commercial exploitation of the
inventions is necessary to protect order public or morality, including
to protect human, animal or plant life or health or to avoid serious
prejudice to nature or the environment, provided that the exclusion is
not based solely on the ground that the Party prohibits commercial
exploitation in its territory of the subject matter of the patent.
3. A Party may also exclude from patentability:
(a) diagnostic, therapeutic and surgical methods for the
treatment of humans or animals;
(b) plants and animals other than microorganisms; and
(c) essentially biological processes for the production of
plants or animals, other than non-biological and
microbiological processes for such production.
Notwithstanding subparagraph (b), each Party shall provide for the
protection of plant varieties through patents, an effective scheme of
sui generis protection, or both.
4. If a Party has not made available product patent protection
for pharmaceutical or agricultural chemicals commensurate with
paragraph 1:
(a) as of January 1, 1992, for subject matter that relates
to naturally occurring substances prepared or produced by,
or significantly derived from, microbiological processes and
intended for food or medicine, and
(b) as of July 1, 1991, for any other subject matter,
that Party shall provide to the inventor of any such product or its
assignee the means to obtain product patent protection for such
product for the unexpired term of the patent for such product granted
in another Party, as long as the product has not been marketed in the
Party providing protection under this paragraph and the person seeking
such protection makes a timely request.
5. Each Party shall provide that:
(a) where the subject matter of a patent is a product, the
patent shall confer on the patent owner the right to prevent
other persons from making, using or selling the subject
matter of the patent, without the patent owner's consent;
and
(b) where the subject matter of a patent is a process, the
patent shall confer on the patent owner the right to prevent
other persons from using that process and from using,
selling, or importing at least the product obtained directly
by that process, without the patent owner's consent.
6. A Party may provide limited exceptions to the exclusive rights
conferred by a patent, provided that such exceptions do not
unreasonably conflict with a normal exploitation of the patent and do
not unreasonably prejudice the legitimate interests of the patent
owner, taking into account the legitimate interests of other persons.
7. Subject to paragraphs 2 and 3, patents shall be available and
patent rights enjoyable without discrimination as to the field of
technology, the territory of the Party where the invention was made
and whether products are imported or locally produced.
8. A Party may revoke a patent only when:
(a) grounds exist that would have justified a refusal to
grant the patent; or
(b) the grant of a compulsory license has not remedied the
lack of exploitation of the patent.
9. Each Party shall permit patent owners to assign and transfer
by succession their patents, and to conclude licensing contracts.
10. Where the law of a Party allows for use of the subject matter
of a patent, other than that use allowed under paragraph 6, without
the authorization of the right holder, including use by the government
or other persons authorized by the government, the Party shall respect
the following provisions:
(a) authorization of such use shall be considered on its
individual merits;
(b) such use may only be permitted if, prior to such use,
the proposed user has made efforts to obtain authorization
from the right holder on reasonable commercial terms and
conditions and such efforts have not been successful within
a reasonable period of time. The requirement to make such
efforts may be waived by a Party in the case of a national
emergency or other circumstances of extreme urgency or in
cases of public non-commercial use. In situations of
national emergency or other circumstances of extreme
urgency, the right holder shall, nevertheless, be notified
as soon as reasonably practicable. In the case of public
non-commercial use, where the government or contractor,
without making a patent search, knows or has demonstrable
grounds to know that a valid patent is or will be used by or
for the government, the right holder shall be informed
promptly;
(c) the scope and duration of such use shall be limited to
the purpose for which it was authorized;
(d) such use shall be non-exclusive;
(e) such use shall be non-assignable, except with that
part of the enterprise or goodwill that enjoys such use;
(f) any such use shall be authorized predominantly for the
supply of the Party's domestic market;
(g) authorization for such use shall be liable, subject to
adequate protection of the legitimate interests of the
persons so authorized, to be terminated if and when the
circumstances that led to it cease to exist and are unlikely
to recur. The competent authority shall have the authority
to review, on motivated request, the continued existence of
these circumstances;
(h) the right holder shall be paid adequate remuneration
in the circumstances of each case, taking into account the
economic value of the authorization;
(i) the legal validity of any decision relating to the
authorization shall be subject to judicial or other
independent review by a distinct higher authority;
(j) any decision relating to the remuneration provided in
respect of such use shall be subject to judicial or other
independent review by a distinct higher authority;
(k) the Party shall not be obliged to apply the conditions
set out in subparagraphs (b) and (f) where such use is
permitted to remedy a practice determined after judicial or
administrative process to be anticompetitive. The need to
correct anticompetitive practices may be taken into account
in determining the amount of remuneration in such cases.
Competent authorities shall have the authority to refuse
termination of authorization if and when the conditions that
led to such authorization are likely to recur;
(l) the Party shall not authorize the use of the subject
matter of a patent to permit the exploitation of another
patent except as a remedy for an adjudicated violation of
domestic laws regarding anticompetitive practices.
11. Where the subject matter of a patent is a process for
obtaining a product, each Party shall, in any infringement proceeding,
place on the defendant the burden of establishing that the allegedly
infringing product was made by a process other than the patented
process in one of the following situations:
(a) the product obtained by the patented process is new;
or
(b) a substantial likelihood exists that the allegedly
infringing product was made by the process and the patent
owner has been unable through reasonable efforts to
determine the process actually used.
In the gathering and evaluation of evidence, the legitimate interests
of the defendant in protecting its trade secrets shall be taken into
account.
12. Each Party shall provide a term of protection for patents of
at least 20 years from the date of filing or 17 years from the date of
grant. A Party may extend the term of patent protection, in
appropriate cases, to compensate for delays caused by regulatory
approval processes.
------------------------------
Date: Sun 7 Nov 1993 16:04:43 CST
From: CuD Moderators <cudigest@mindvox.phantom.com>
Subject: File 7--Phiber Optik Sentenced to One Year in Prison
Mark Abene (phiber optik) was sentenced in federal court in New York
this past week to one year in prison in addition to 600 hours of
community service. The term will start January 7, 1994. It is possible
that Abene will be released after completion of 10 months of the
sentence. However, he may be eligible for a community corrections
program much earlier.
Abene was the last of the MOD defendants to be sentenced for computer
intrusion and other crimes. Complete descriptions of events,
including the indictment, can be found in CuDs 4.30, 4.31, 4.32, and
4.33.
Further details will follow next week.
------------------------------
End of Computer Underground Digest #5.84
************************************
