💾 Archived View for gemini.spam.works › mirrors › textfiles › magazines › CUD › cud0702.txt captured on 2022-06-12 at 10:57:06.
-=-=-=-=-=-=-
Computer underground Digest Wed Jan 11, 1995 Volume 7 : Issue 02
ISSN 1004-042X
Editors: Jim Thomas and Gordon Meyer (TK0JUT2@NIU.BITNET)
Archivist: Brendan Kehoe
Retiring Shadow Archivist: Stanton McCandlish
Shadow-Archivists: Dan Carosone / Paul Southworth
Ralph Sims / Jyrki Kuoppala
Ian Dickinson
Copy Reader: Laslo Toth
CONTENTS, #7.02 (Wed, Jan 11, 1995)
File 1-Royalities for GIFs at On-line Systems?
File 2-(fwd) Unisys's response to GIF furor (fwd)
File 3-Pioneer Awards--Call For Nominations
File 4- Politics of telecommunications "competition"
File 5-RFC: Key Capture Utility Survey
File 6-(fwd) AOL announcement on crackdown on illegal activities
File 7-Cu Digest Header Information (unchanged since 25 Nov 1994)
CuD ADMINISTRATIVE, EDITORIAL, AND SUBSCRIPTION INFORMATION APPEARS IN
THE CONCLUDING FILE AT THE END OF EACH ISSUE.
----------------------------------------------------------------------
Date: Fri, 6 Jan 1995 09:23:58 CST
From: "John D. Pritchard" <jdp@CS.COLUMBIA.EDU>
Subject: File 1--Royalities for GIFs at On-line Systems?
----------------------Original message----------------------------
hi, i think the members of this list will find this interesting..
An Open Letter to Our Colleagues In the Online Communications Community:
------------------------------------------------------------------
By Pat Clawson <rip.support@telegrafix.com>
January 2, 1995
The announcement by CompuServe and Unisys that users of the GIF image
format must register by January 10 and pay a royalty or face lawsuits
for their past usage, is the online communications community's
equivalent of the sneak attack at Pearl Harbor.
The announcement of the CompuServe-Unisys GIF Tax on December 29,
during the lull between Christmas and New Year's Day, was clearly
timed to cause maximum damage while an unsuspecting public celebrated
the holidays.
We at TeleGrafix Communications have no quarrel with those who seek to
protect their intellectual property and profit from it. Indeed, we
are in business to do the same. We believe those who develop software
are entitled to reap financial rewards from their labors.
But in our opinion, the timing and circumstances of the CompuServe-
Unisys action indicates this is a shakedown of the online communications
community by two powerful corporations, rather than a reasonable
effort to protect intellectual property.
The GIF format has been in widespread public use since 1987. Its
widespread use and royalty-free licensing has been encouraged by
CompuServe for years. Neither CompuServe or Unisys have made any
significant improvements to GIF or its underlying LZW algorithm and
compression process to justify charging for what has been free.
Giving GIF users only 14 days to comply with sudden, unexpected
demands to pay the private CompuServe-Unisys GIF Tax or face
prosecution for past usage of what had been promoted for seven years
as free, open standard software is unconscionable. It is especially
outrageous since CompuServe and Unisys admit in writing that they
decided to require licensing SIX MONTHS AGO in June, and didn't
announce it to the public until now.
According to the CompuServe-Unisys GIF licensing agreement, the
settlement of the patent dispute was executed on June 21, 1994.
CompuServe agreed to implement the agreement "as soon as reasonably
practicable and in no case later than six (6) months after the date
this Agreement is executed..." That six month period ended on
December 21, 1994 -- but CompuServe did not make the licensing terms
public until December 28. Indeed, CompuServe appears to have violated
the terms of its own settlement agreement with Unisys.
While many of the messages we have read online in reaction to the
CompuServe-Unisys GIF Tax decree express both dismay and disbelief,
virtually none have analyzed the actual provisions of the licensing
agreement. It is in this area that TeleGrafix Communications wishes
to contribute to the dialogue.
In our opinion, the CompuServe-Unisys licensing agreement is both
illogical and overly broad. Let's examine some of its key provisions.
All quotes cited are directly from the agreement.
1. CompuServe will license Developers who want to use GIF technology.
The term "developer" is defined as "the other undersigned party to the
agreement," and it seems to apply to ANYONE who contemplates distributing
any product that uses the GIF format.
2. Developers will be licensed to sell or distribute "Products" that
"use and exploit GIF ... solely within the Field of Use." The term
"Field of Use" is defined as "primarily for accessing the CompuServe
Information Service and for manipulating and viewing data received
through the CompuServe Information Service." The licensing agreement
further defines the term "Products" as being "software that is
developed or distributed ... which is designed for and used primarily
for accessing the CompuServe Information Service and for manipulating
and viewing data received through the CompuServe Information Service."
IT APPEARS THAT THE ONLY LAWFUL USE OF GIF WILL BE FOR COMPUSERVE-RELATED
PRODUCTS. Using GIF images in any other manner, such as on CD-ROMs or
bulletin board systems, is prohibited. Most of the thousands of
products that have used GIF in some manner are henceforth contraband.
3. Developers may no longer "use, copy, modify or distribute the GIF
specification, except as expressly permitted by CompuServe." This
states that the GIF specification can no longer be shared, published
or uploaded in any manner without the express consent of CompuServe.
4. Members of the public are prohibited from using any software
product containing GIF until they have become a REGISTERED user of the
product. The customer also must agree to use the product "primarily
for accessing the CompuServe Information Service and for manipulating
and viewing data received through the CompuServe Information Service."
This virtually eliminates the concept of freeware or shareware
containing GIF capabilities, since prospective customers can no longer
try out these software products without registering them first.
5. Software developers must pay $1.00 for a license to use GIF, PLUS a
fee equal to the GREATER of 1.5% of the selling price of the product,
or $0.15 per "Disposition." Disposition is defined as "the sale,
lease or license or any other grant of rights to a Product or any new
Product." All royalties must be paid quarterly. Noncommercial and
freeware usage of GIF technology is NOT exempted from the royalty
requirement. Because the royalty provisions and definition of
"Disposition" are so broad in scope, it appears that a GIF Tax payment
may be due to CompuServe-Unisys each time a GIF image is transmitted
via BBS or Internet. The operators of a BBS or World Wide Web site
with hundreds or thousands of GIF images online could easily be
bankrupted by these licensing requirements.
6. CompuServe must be notified of ANY new product using GIF when it is
first offered to customers.
7. Persons using GIF must keep records of its use, and CompuServe has
the right to audit those records every year upon seven days notice.
Persons using GIF must pay the cost of the audit if a royalty
underpayment of 10% or more is discovered, along with 12% interest on
any underpaid royalties.
8. Even if the patent is later found by the courts or the U.S. Patent
Office to be invalid and unenforcable, or if the patent expires, any
developer must "return all copies of the GIF specification and any
confidential information of CompuServe then in its possession or
control to CompuServe, (ii) stop using the Licensed Technology, and
(iii) stop distributing Products." This states that EVEN IF THE
PATENT IS OVERTURNED OR EXPIRES, YOU MUST STOP USING OR DISTRIBUTING
GIF.
9. Even though CompuServe has publicly disseminated the text of the
agreement it wants GIF users to sign, the terms of the agreement are
to remain confidential. This is illogical, to say the least, since
they have posted it for public download on their own system.
10. Developers have to indemnify and hold CompuServe harmless for any
damages if their CUSTOMERS somehow use GIF technology in a way not
permitted by the licensing agreement.
11. Unisys has the right to enforce the agreement, as well as
CompuServe. Further, Unisys has the right to pursue legal action or
seek damages against Developers even after the agreement has
terminated.
TeleGrafix Communicatons Inc. will not sign such a licensing
agreement. We think most other software developers, BBS sysops and
Web site operators also will refuse to sign.
We encourage our colleagues in the online communications community to
evaluate the CompuServe-Unisys action, and to lodge appropriate
protests directly with those companies.
We believe that the CompuServe-Unisys GIF Tax drives a stake through
the heart of Internet development. It will cripple the World Wide
Web, NCSA Mosaic, and other Internet multimedia technologies that rely
heavily on GIF imaging.
Fortunately, we at TeleGrafix Communications do not depend on GIF
imaging in our new RIPscrip 2.0 online multimedia technologies. We
chose to implement the JPEG image format and only recently decided to
add GIF support as a convienience to our customers. Due to the
restrictive conditions of the CompuServe-Unisys GIF Tax and licensing
agreement, we must now reevaluate our plans for supporting GIF use in
the upcoming release of RIPscrip 2.0.
While our company hopes to profit financially from our advanced
RIPscrip 2.0 technology, we will not demand royalties from those who
have used the freeware versions of our earlier RIPscrip 1.54 products
and/or technical specifications. The RIPscrip 2.0 specification also
will be made public for third-party use after it is finalized.
We expect that the CompuServe-Unisys action will spell the death of
GIF as a commercially viable technology, shifting the attention of the
online communications community to JPEG imaging.
Sincerely,
Pat Clawson
President & Chief Executive Officer
TeleGrafix Communications Inc.
Huntington Beach, CA
Voice: (714) 379-2140
Fax: (714) 379-2132
BBS: (714) 379-2133
Internet: rip.support@telegrafix.com
------------------------------
Date: Tue, 10 Jan 1995 22:09:21 -0600 (CST)
From: David Smith <bladex@BGA.COM>
Subject: File 2--(fwd) Unisys's response to GIF furor (fwd)
Here's the scoop, from Unisys themselves.
thanks, | "The most exciting breakthroughs of the 21st century
| will not occur because of technology but because
David Smith | of an expanding concept of what it means to be human."
bladex@bga.com | -- John Naisbitt / Patricia Aburdene
---------- Forwarded message ----------
>From the GRAPHSUPPORT forum on CompuServe:
January 6, 1995
Unisys Clarifies Policy Regarding Patent Use in On-Line Service
Offerings
The concerns, inquiries and some apparent confusion that have resulted
from the December CompuServe advisory clearly indicate that we need to
clarify our policy concerning the use of the Unisys Lev Zempel Welch
(LZW) patent by software developers for the major on-line services.
We want to reiterate earlier communications that the issue of patent
licenses is not focused on the end users of on-line networks,
including the Internet. We encourage end users to continue to take
full advantage of the outstanding benefits of a rapidly growing
on-line community.
Unisys was awarded the patent in 1985. We became aware of the
increasing interest in our LZW patent beginning in 1990 when many
companies approached us to license the patent for their hardware and
software products. The growth in the use of compression technology
was mushrooming in order to meet the demands for transmitting
increased amounts of data. To date, more than 100 companies,
including hardware, software and on-line information services, have
licensed the Unisys LZW technology.
Two years ago, Unisys learned that the LZW method was incorporated in
the GIF specification and immediately began negotiations with
CompuServe in January of 1993. We reached agreement with CompuServe
on licensing the technology in June 1994, which calls for CompuServe
to pay Unisys a royalty of 1% of the average selling price it charges
for its software. This represents approximately 11 cents for each
copy sold and connected to its information service.
Under the agreement, CompuServe, at its discretion, could relicense
the LZW technology to commercial developers using the GIF
specification in software that connected directly to the CompuServe
information service.
With the agreement completed on June 21, 1994, CompuServe was given
six months to implement the terms of its license. CompuServe later
asked for a one-month extension, which we granted.
Unisys did not require CompuServe to pass on any fee to its
sublicensees or end users. Such a decision, and the content and
timing of CompuServe+s advisory, was at their discretion.
Consistent with the entire information industry+s desire to protect
intellectual property, Unisys will expect all of the major commercial
on-line information services companies employing the LZW patent to
license the technology from Unisys at a reasonable rate. The on-line
service companies are not required to sublicense the technology to
developers producing software for the commercial on-line services. It
will be, as it is today, at the on-line service+s discretion as to
whether it charges a license fee to developers or chooses an
alternative method to account for its licensing fees payable to
Unisys.
We recognize and are concerned -- thanks in large part to the recent
and very active use of the on-line network -- that developers did not
understand that the patented technology was resident in GIF. Taking
that into account, Unisys does not intend to pursue previous
inadvertent infringement by versions of GIF-based software products
marketed prior to 1995.
Concerning all future software product development and enhancement of
existing products for accessing on-line services, Unisys expects
developers of commercial, for-profit software to secure a license
from Unisys, or through the licensed on-line service, for the use of
the patented technology. The very reasonable terms should prove no
financial barrier to the introduction of product into the on-line
network.
Unisys does not require licensing, or fees to be paid, for
non-commercial, non-profit GIF-based applications, including those for
use on the on-line services.
Concerning developers of software for the Internet network, the same
principle applies. Unisys will not pursue previous inadvertent
infringement by developers producing versions of software products
for the Internet prior to 1995. The company does not require
licensing, or fees to be paid for non-commercial, non-profit offerings
on the Internet, including +Freeware+.
Commercial developers of GIF-based software for the Internet are
expected to secure a licensing agreement with Unisys for software
products introduced beginning in 1995, or enhancements of products
that were introduced prior to 1995. Again, terms should not preclude
the entry by these firms into the marketplace.
For organizations introducing World Wide Web servers and +Home Page+
offerings, most will not be required to secure a license from Unisys.
Most organizations acquire software from other developers to create
their offerings on their servers. Therefore, only the software firms
who sell the enabling software for profit would be expected to secure
a licensing agreement from Unisys.
Unisys understands that this issue has caused concern. We want to
reassure all users and developers that we are strong proponents of the
on-line industry.
We+re proud that this important Unisys technology has played a role
in the introduction of innovative products and services, many of which
are fueling the explosive growth of the information superhighway.
As members of the information community we want to strike the
appropriate balance between information access and the rights of all
information companies, including the developers of software, to
protect their intellectual property rights.
Patent information: Contact Welch Patent Licensing Department;
Unisys; Mail Stop C1SW19; P.O. Box 500, Blue Bell, PA 19424.
Or via Internet, send E-mail to LZW_INFOUNISYS.COM, or use a form
available on the Home Page of the Unisys Web Server
(http:\\www.unisys.com) to request follow-up information.
Media contacts: Unisys Public Relations -- Bob O+Leary (215)
986-6413 or Oliver Picher (215) 986-5367
------------------------------
From: Mike Godwin <mnemonic@EFF.ORG>
Subject: File 3--Pioneer Awards--Call For Nominations
Date: Wed, 4 Jan 1995 09:06:41 -0500 (EST)
THE FOURTH ANNUAL INTERNATIONAL EFF PIONEER AWARDS:
CALL FOR NOMINATIONS
Deadline: January 20, 1995
In every field of human endeavor,there are those dedicated to expanding
knowledge,freedom,efficiency and utility. Along the electronic frontier,
this is especially true. To recognize this, the Electronic Frontier
Foundation has established the Pioneer Awards for deserving individuals
and organizations.
The Pioneer Awards are international and nominations are open to all.
In March of 1992, the first EFF Pioneer Awards were given in Washington
D.C. The winners were: Douglas C. Engelbart, Robert Kahn, Jim Warren, Tom
Jennings, and Andrzej Smereczynski. The 1993 Pioneer Award recipients were
Paul Baran, Vinton Cerf, Ward Christensen, Dave Hughes and the USENET
software developers, represented by the software's originators Tom
Truscott and Jim Ellis. The 1994 Pioneer Award winners were Ivan
Sutherland, Whitfield Diffie and Martin Hellman, Murray Turoff and Starr
Roxanne Hiltz, Lee Felsenstein, Bill Atkinson, and the WELL.
The Fourth Annual Pioneer Awards will be given in Burlingame, California,
at the 5th Conference on Computers, Freedom, and Privacy, which will take
place on March 28-31 in 1995.
All valid nominations will be reviewed by a panel of impartial judges
chosen for their knowledge of computer-based communications and the
technical, legal, and social issues involved in networking.
There are no specific categories for the Pioneer Awards, but the following
guidelines apply:
1) The nominees must have made a substantial contribution to the
health, growth, accessibility, or freedom of computer-based
communications.
2) The contribution may be technical, social, economic or cultural.
3) Nominations may be of individuals, systems, or organizations in the
private or public sectors.
4) Nominations are open to all, and you may nominate more than one
recipient. You may nominate yourself or your organization.
5) All nominations, to be valid, must contain your reasons, however
brief, for nominating the individual or organization, along with a means
of contacting the nominee, and your own contact number. Anonymous
nominations will be allowed, but we prefer to be able to contact the
nominating parties in the event that we need more information..
6) Every person or organization, with the single exception of EFF staff
members, are eligible for Pioneer Awards.
7) Persons or representatives of organizations receiving a Pioneer
Award will be invited to attend the ceremony at the Foundation's expense.
You may nominate as many as you wish, but please use one form per
nomination. You may return the forms to us via email to
pioneer@eff.org
You may mail them to us at:
Electronic Frontier Foundation
attn: Pioneer Awards
1667 K St. NW
Suite 801
Washington, DC 20006
You may FAX them to us at:
+1 202-861-1258
Just tell us the name of the nominee, the phone number or email address at
which the nominee can be reached, and, most important, why you feel the
nominee deserves the award. You may attach supporting documentation.
Please include your own name, address, and phone number.
We're looking for the Pioneers of the Electronic Frontier that have made
and are making a difference. Thanks for helping us find them.
The Electronic Frontier Foundation
-------EFF Pioneer Awards Nomination Form------
Please return to the Electronic Frontier Foundation via email to:
pioneer@eff.org via surface mail to:
Electronic Frontier Foundation
attn: Pioneer Awards
1667 K St. NW
Suite 801
Washington, DC 20006
You may FAX them to us at:
+1 202-861-1258
Nominee:
Title:
Company/Organization:
Contact number or email address:
Reason for nomination:
Your name and contact information:
Extra documentation attached:
DEADLINE: ALL NOMINATIONS MUST BE RECEIVED BY THE ELECTRONIC FRONTIER
FOUNDATION BY MIDNIGHT, EASTERN STANDARD TIME U.S., JANUARY 20, 1995.
------------------------------
Date: Wed, 11 Jan 1995 17:46:44 CST
From: Vigdor Schreibman - FINS <fins@ACCESS.DIGEX.NET>
Subject: File 4-- Politics of telecommunications "competition"
==================================================================
FINS SPECIAL REPORT January 10, 1995
==================================================================
POLITICS OF TELECOMMUNICATIONS "COMPETITION"
Dramatic Clash Over Real Competition, and Giant Collaborators
Washington, DC--Vice President Al Gore, addressing a
Federal-State-Local Telecommunications Summit in the U.S. Capitol, Jan
9, underscored the administration's goal to seek "real competition" in
the marketplace of local telephone exchange services [Fins-II2-01].
The Regional Bell Operating Companies (RBOCs) presently enjoy monopoly
power and complete control over virtually all of the telephone traffic
in the local bottleneck, reliable industry reports disclose. Gore's
remarks were aimed squarely at the proposal made last year by Senate
Finance Chairman Bob Packwood (R-OR) and Sen. John Breaux (D.LA),
calling for complete deregulation of the telecommunications industry
by a date certain-without regard to competitive conditions--expected
to be presented again this year.
Gore stated that "the game should not begin on some arbitrary date
without rules at all on the mistaken assumption that a calendar can
replace a rulebooks." He added that "Too many people and businesses
have too much at stake to be subject to the vagaries of trying to play
now and figure out the rule later." The administration "cannot
support a proposal to fully deregulate the local telephone exchanges
upon the mere prospect that some theoretical competitor might be able
to provide some services to some hypothetical customer," Gore added.
The Vice President's remarks provided a dramatic backdrop for a
hearing on telecommunications issues held Jan 9, in the U.S. Senate by
the full Committee on Commerce, Science, and Transportation (Pressler,
R-SD, Chairman). The list of witnesses scheduled to attend the Senate
hearing included, no Democrats, but all the Republican big guns on
telecommunications matters: Senate Majority Leader Dole (R-KS), House
Speaker Gingrich (D-GA), House Commerce Chairman Bliley (R-VA), and
House Commerce Telecommunications and Finance Subcommittee Chairman
Jack Fields (R-TX).
Sen. Packwood and Sen. Breaux engaged the witnesses in a spirited
discussion concerning their proposal for setting a specific date for
local telecommunications competition to begin. "Gentlemen, let the
games begin" Sen Packwood exclaimed. Packwood said that Congress
should not try to set fair rules for competition because that would
defeat the objective of having a simple administrative process.
"There will be winners and loosers, and the government should not
decide such matters ... the marketplace should," Packwood declared.
Republican members of the Commerce Committee seemed to agree with the
Packwood formula, although Sen. Stevens (R-Alaska) and Snow (R-Maine)
appeared concerned about the potential adverse impact on rural
America. The House witnesses generally supported the idea, although
none of the members were unable to come up with a viable formula that
would assure "a level playing field" in an industry that is currently
dominated by monopolists and oligopolists.
Speaker Gingrich did not show up for the Senate hearing. However,
Gingrich has devoted considerable intellectual efforts to this subject
in the past [See e.g., The Futurist, June 1985]. Moreover, reports
circulating around the U.S. Capitol during recent weeks indicate that
Gingrich intends to play an important role in designing the future of
"the Knowledge Age." INTERACTIVE AGE, reported Dec 12, 1994 that
Speaker Newt Gingrich was "looking to a new think tank to map out a
Vision of America's high-tech future." The Progress and Freedom
Foundation, established for that purpose, has close links to Gingrich
according to IA.
Placed under retainer by The Progress and Freedom Foundation, are
well known technocrats George Gilder, Alvin Toffler, Jay Keyworth, and
Esther Dyson, who have written a plan calling for "deregulation of
every aspect of telecommunications." The vision document, which was
written by those celebrities of technology is called the "Magna Carta
for the Knowledge Age" [Fins-PaN-18]. The document was ultimately
expected to be passed on to Gingrich and his aides, as a basis for
legislative planning, according to IA.
The "Magna Carta" calls for sweeping deregulation of
telecommunications, in the name of promoting "competition," while also
calling for "much greater collaboration between the cable industry and
phone companies." What is intended is a plan to join the huge fiber
optic resources of the phone companies with the massive asset of 57
million broadband links (i.e. into homes now receiving cable-TV
service) of the cable TV companies to produce a new kind of national
network -- multimedia, interactive. The planners hope that this
network would become accessible to Americans of modest means "as costs
fall." The authors of the "Magna Carta" attempt to explain the
evident sharp contradiction in their plan, between promoting
competition through sweeping deregulation and santioning collaboration
between the two largest players, with this rationale:
... obstructing such collaboration -- in the cause of forcing a
competition between the cable and phone industries -- is socially
elitist. To the extent it prevents collaboration between the
cable industry and the phone companies, present federal policy
actually thwarts the administration's own goals of access and
empowerment.
Bell Atlantic Corp., and Telecommunications Inc., proposed last
October, a merger of phone and cable resources that could have paved
the way for such a national network. A number of lawmakers such as
Rep. Edward L. Markey (D-MA), and Sen. Howard M. Metzenbaum (D-OH),
expressed "extreme concern" over the anticompetitive nature of the
proposed Bell-TCI merger, and the plan was eventually scrapped under a
cloud of uncertainty.
George Gilder, one of the team of technocrats who wrote the "Magna
Carta" now writes about telecommunications issues for Forbes, ASAP.
In an article appearing in the June 6, 1994 issue of Forbes ASAP,
Gilder indicated a strong interest in the theory of unrestrained