Date: Tue, 18 Oct 1994 18:00:54 -0700 From: Jim Warren Subject: GovAccess.o77: Samuelson paper, GPO, patents, NJ, current, telco regs FOR FULL TEXT OF THE SAMUELSON CRITIQUE OF NII INFORMATION-MONOPOLY PLANS >From nmertzel@interport.net Wed Oct 12 20:39:50 1994 From: nmertzel@interport.net (Nancy Mertzel) I read with interest your excerpts from Pamela Samuelson's critique of the NII Green Paper. (It was forwarded to the Cyberia Law List.) ... I found it online at the GNN page. http://gnn.com/meta/imedia [I forwarded substantive excerpts from Paula's 37-kilobyte paper that will appear in a forthcoming issue of the Communications of the ACM -- originally distributed to Dave Farbers "interesting-people" list -- in GovAccess.069. Last I heard, Paula was at the University of Pittsburgh Law School. I have no email address for her (Do You?). --jim] ------------------------------ AN OPPOSING VIEW ON SAMUELSON'S NII CRITIQUE From: kr@shell.portal.com Sun Oct 16 18:30:34 1994 >BUILDING ON THE STRENGTHS OF THE EXISTING NII > >A curious omission from the NII Report is any discussion of the >extent to which existing digital networks, such as the Internet, have >furthered the constitutional purposes of copyright. The drafters of >the Report seem to view the existing digital networks as empty >pipelines awaiting content that publishers today are afraid of putting >there because copyright law today doesn't give them enough control >over their works. This point can be debunked pretty easily if one is still able to see straight. I do not want the publisher's content on the net if this means that I have to relinquish and surrender my rights and freedoms. The publishers can choose to stick with paper until they turn grey. I would not mind. If the publishers want to offer their stuff on the net, they will have to accept the established rules of that domain and act accordingly. If they do that, I certainly do not mind their presence, and they will be welcome. But it is extremely vile to go lobbying for twisting the laws in a fashion that will benefit only that particular special interest group and will harm everybody else. There is certainly no obligation whatsoever on behalf of the government to ensure that the publishing industry will be able to safely expand their market into the net. If the government had any common sense and dignity left, they would be able to see that. It is not even the government's duty to install electronic networks (which gives them a desire to regulate them), because that business is already thriving without government backing. > It is simply not true that >the Report recommends only minor clarifications and changes to >copyright law, even though the press coverage of the Report dutifully >echoed the Report's statements that they were. (Where are the >investigative reporters when we really need them?) The answer is easy to find: Journalists and reporters are writing on behalf of "publishers" (it is the only channel through which they earn their income). So it is clear that no serious questioning of publishers' practises will ever come out of the corner of the "mass media". Sorry about that. That of course leaves the question of who then is going to have this important discussion. I would be glad to hear good suggestions. --- Markus Krummenacker 1797 Union Street Director of Research San Francisco, CA 94123 Nanothinc, A California Corporation Phone: (415) 202-9969 direct email: kr@nanothinc.com FAX: (415) 202-9975 general info: info@nanothinc.com URL: Coming this fall ------------------------------ TELNET SITE FOR GPO DOCUMENTS >From 75300.2105@compuserve.com Thu Oct 13 22:20:39 1994 From: "Lawrence J. Magid" <75300.2105@compuserve.com> On October 4th, GPO announced that it is now offering free pubic access via Federal Depository libraries. You can access that data via the University of Missouri's Columbia Online Information Network (COIN). Telnet to 128.206.1.3, register as "guest" and select Government Center from the main prompt. Performance, especially during the business day, can be very sluggish. ------------------------------ MOSAIC SITE FOR PATENT INFORMATION From: srctran@world.std.com (Gregory Aharonian) Wed, 12 Oct 1994 19:02:10 To: patents@world.std.com I have created a Mosaic site with 500 MB of PTO & patenting information, including the beginning of an Internet site that provides full searching capabilities of the PTO's patent text databases for free. Beyond lots of documents, the current Mosaic site allows people to retreive patent titles in any class/subclass by clicking through a few screens. The patent title data goes from 3500000 to Dec 1993. The Mosaic site is at: http://sunsite.unc.edu/patents/intropat.html (the Sun servers are going through special upgrades from Sun, so crash from time to time, so if your http request fails, try a little later in the day) with the following top level menu items: Determine patent class/subclass using Manual of Classification Master list of all 400+ patent classes Design patent groups ELECTRONIC patent groups MECHANICAL patent groups ENGINEERING patent groups CHEMICAL patent groups Determine patent class/subclass using Index to Classification RETRIEVE patent titles using class/subclass code Patent documents from the PTO, PCT, EPO, etc. Phone numbers for various PTO offices PTO Examining Groups - key personel and contact points Special PTO P.O. boxes for sending materials to the PTO Crystal City Public Patent Searching Room PTO depository libraries across the country US Patent filing fees Massachusetts roster of attorneys Preparation of Patent Drawings - PTO guide 37 CFR 1.84 appendices to Patent Drawings guide Drawing examples appendix 4 of Patent Drawing guide Current PCT countries and future expansion Paris Convention for int. property protection US Code Section 35 - federal patent laws IPNS - Internet Patent News Service Archive of stories from the IPNS, etc. [Extensive additional notes deleted. --jim] Greg Aharonian Internet Patent News Service ------------------------------ ONLINE DETAILS ABOUT NEW JERSEY'S S.1068 ONLINE LEGISLATION LEGISLATION >From swayze@pilot.njin.net Thu Oct 13 18:55:51 1994 Aside from my postings via the S1068 Mailing List (a rather primative and unsophisticated mailing list but it's a start :)), you can catch progress reports re New Jersey's Internet bill at the Electronic Frontier Foundation. The bill is online at: ftp.eff.org, /pub/EFF/Legislation/Foreign_and_local/NJ/ gopher.eff.org, 1/EFF/Legislation/Foreign_and_local/NJ http://www.eff.org/pub/EFF/Legislation/Foreign_and_local/NJ/ with a link into the activism & access to govt. info directory (.../EFF/Issues/Activism/Foreign_and_local/NJ) Filename is nj_s1068_govinf_online.bill Michael Swayze ------------------------------ A CURRENT EVENTS LISTSERV >From owner-new-list@VM1.NODAK.EDU Thu Oct 13 16:43:48 1994 Subject: NEW: CURRENT - Current Events Discussion List CURRENT on LISTSERV@GITVM1.BITNET or LISTSERV@GITVM1.GATECH.EDU The CURRENT list is for Current events. Anything that you have read or heard is welcome here. Anything at all. To Subscribe send mail to LISTSERV@GITVM1 on BITNET or to LISTSERV@GITVM1.CATECH.EDU with the following in the body of E-Mail: SUB CURRENT yourfirstname yourlastname Example: Sub Current Jason Slack Owner: Jason Slack jslack2@onondaga.bitnet or jslack2@ocmvm.cnyric.org ------------------------------ RE PACBELL'S RESIDENTIAL ISDN SERVICES >From dank@alumni.caltech.edu Thu Sep 22 01:09:39 1994 > FYI: the specifics of the PacBell home ISDN offering follow: Anyone interested in ISDN should visit my WWW ISDN page. Using Lynx or Mosaic, open the URL http://alumni.caltech.edu/~dank/isdn It has pointers to *every* known online source of ISDN info, and lists vendors, standards, telco's, and ISDN Internet providers. - Dan Kegel ------------------------------ CONTROVERSY OVER SOME UNREGULATED 800-NUMBERS NOW HAVING A *TOLL CHARGE*! >From farber@eff.org Sun Oct 16 07:25:10 1994 Subject: news: Latest Ripoff -- NON-toll-free 800 numbers!! Date: Fri, 14 Oct 1994 11:37:44 -0400 [farber didn't forward his source --jim] To: moredohrs@FARNSWORTH.MIT.EDU, tcfgie@weber.ucsd.edu The so called MCI "CALL-INFO" rip-off has gotten a lot of advertising play lately. It looks like a toll-free information number, since 800-555-1212 is still such a thing. Be wary from now on of 800 numbers. Many are not toll-free, and they can charge you whatever they feel like. There is no ceiling!! And apparently they don't have to warn you of the charge when you dial. -rjs >From: dave@westmark.com (Dave Levenson) >Subject: 800-CALL-INFO >Organization: Westmark, Inc. >Date: Thu, 13 Oct 1994 14:15:16 GMT > >This number has recently gotten a whole lot of prime-time radio and TV >advertisement. > >This appears that the latest non-toll-free 800 trap. Not only do they >charge the directory-assistance information charge of $0.75 to the >calling telephone number, they also offer to connect the caller with >the number requested, and to charge the calling number for that call. >The 0.75 charge is not mentioned at any time during a call for >directory assistance. >If you bought yourself (or your business) a toll-free number to encourage >lots of prospective customers to give you a call, well, sorry about >that. The industry seems to have substantially lowered the value of >such numbers by allowing others to make them non-toll-free, and thereby >making callers suspicious of them. >Date: Wed, 12 Oct 1994 09:35:02 -0700 (PDT) >From: Les Reeves >Subject: Testing 1-800-CALL-INFO > >MCI has announced a new service, 1-800 CALL INFO. It is touted as a >nation-wide directory assistance service. You are charged $0.75 per >call for two searches. > >As a test, I called and asked for the number of a Patrick Townson in >Chicago, IL. I figured this was a good test since Pat has moved in >the past year and I wasn't even sure he was still in Chicago proper. > >After giving the operator Pat's name and city, and waiting about 45 >seconds, I was told that there were two listings, one non-published >and one unlisted. Hmmm. I asked for another name and the operator >informed me that I had used up my two searches. > >800 CALL INFO is eleven digits. The extra O must be for overcharge!! > > Les lreeves@crl.com Atlanta,GA 404.874.7806 > > >[TELECOM Digest Editor's Note: Yeah, well my non-published number is >for bill collectors trying to get ahold of me and my unlisted number >is for use when I call hot-chat lines. ... Seriously, I am >curious how they get their information and how they have it organized. >If you asked for me in 'Chicago' (312) then I am not there, period >however there is a Patrick Townsend (no relation, no connection) who >by coincidence lived only a few blocks away from me when I was living >in Rogers Park (Chicago neighborhood) until about a year ago. I am >told he had to get his number non-pub out of self defense because so >many people were calling him looking for me! If you asked for me >in 708 or "Chicago North Suburbs" then maybe the response would have >been different. I wonder if MCI is using any sort of legitimate data- >base from the local telcos or if they have strung together some sort >of outdated cross-reference books where half the entries are out of >date and a couple years old. Sounds like a ripoff to me; best limit >use of the service to coin phones (Genuine Bell or COCOT, I don't care) >and of course be prepared to deposit the 75 cents in coins when the >operator requests it ... but then, how were *you* to know a call to >an 800 number costs you money? ... remember the astrologers >a couple years ago operating on an 800 number and how Digest readers >took a sudden interest in the subject? PAT] ------------------------------ From: farber@central.cis.upenn.edu (David Farber) Sun Oct 16 16:44:45 1994 Subject: Re: news: Latest Ripoff -- NON-toll-free 800 numbers!! Brock, shall I assume that the "industry" begged to the FCC not to have this perk and that the FCC just happened to think it up. Please!!!! Dave Date: Sun, 16 Oct 1994 16:11:31 -0700 (PDT) From: "Brock N. Meeks" I'm no fan of the long distance companies, but it wasn't "the industry" that decided to let companies shart charging for 800 numbers. That little perk came from the FCC. If you hvae a gripe with 800 numbers now being able to charge money, talk to Reed Hundt at the FCC. Brock Meeks Washington Bureau Chief Interactive Week ------------------------------ Unverified Rumors Mongered Here DEVIOUS DEEDS BY THE TELCOS? >From shsnow@vnet.net Fri Oct 14 04:12:00 1994 I have long admired your bulldog/watchdog efforts to keep netizens alerted to the various threats the gov't sends our way. [awww, gee -j] Having hung around ringside as much as you have, I wonder if you have this thought in mind, as I do: I wonder if the fix was in on the wiretap bill. That is, a trade with the telecos: do the wiretap bill and give us another session to get a telecom dereg bill. This is an election year, and the telecos could be called upon to do some heavy backing behind the scenes. A republican congress is likely to report out a more favorable dereg bill. To me, it walks like a duck and quacks like one, too. Steve Snow shsnow@cybernetics.net [ *Very* interesting thought! Wouldn't surprise me -- but as they say in government circles, never attribute to conspiracy what you can explain by incompetence. :-) --jim] ------------------------------ You need only reflect that one of the best ways to get yourself a reputation as a dangerous citizen these days is to go about repeating the very phrases which our founding fathers used in the struggle for independence. -- C.A. Beard [indirect indirect indirect fwd from bostic@CS.Berkeley.EDU (Keith Bostic)] Mo' as it Is. --jim GovAccess is an email distribution-list of irregular postings, maintained by Jim Warren, columnist for MicroTimes, Government Technology, BoardWatch, etc. 345 Swett Rd., Woodside CA 94062; voice/415-851-7075; fax/<# upon request> jwarren@well.com -or- jwarren@autodesk.com >> Permission herewith granted for unlimited reposting and recirculation.<< >> Past postings are at ftp.cpsr.org:/cpsr/states/california/govaccess << >> To add or drop the GovAccess list, email to jwarren@well.com . <<