usr.bin/compress: remove, as it is handled by ncompress

1 files changed, 0 insertions, 139 deletions

diff --git a/usr.bin/compress/doc/NOTES b/usr.bin/compress/doc/NOTES
deleted file mode 100644
index 26181bf..0000000
--- a/usr.bin/compress/doc/NOTES
+++ /dev/null
@@ -1,139 +0,0 @@
-From: James A. Woods <jaw@eos.arc.nasa.gov>
-
->From vn Fri Dec  2 18:05:27 1988
-Subject: Re: Looking for C source for RSA
-Newsgroups: sci.crypt
-
-# Illegitimi noncarborundum
-
-Patents are a tar pit.
-
-A good case can be made that most are just a license to sue, and nothing
-is illegal until a patent is upheld in court.
-
-For example, if you receive netnews by means other than 'nntp',
-these very words are being modulated by 'compress',
-a variation on the patented Lempel-Ziv-Welch algorithm.
-
-Original Ziv-Lempel is patent number 4,464,650, and the more powerful
-LZW method is #4,558,302.  Yet despite any similarities between 'compress'
-and LZW (the public-domain 'compress' code was designed and given to the
-world before the ink on the Welch patent was dry), no attorneys from Sperry
-(the assignee) have asked you to unplug your Usenet connection.
-
-Why?  I can't speak for them, but it is possible the claims are too broad,
-or, just as bad, not broad enough.  ('compress' does things not mentioned
-in the Welch patent.)  Maybe they realize that they can commercialize
-LZW better by selling hardware implementations rather than by licensing
-software.  Again, the LZW software delineated in the patent is *not*
-the same as that of 'compress'.
-
-At any rate, court-tested software patents are a different animal;
-corporate patents in a portfolio are usually traded like baseball cards
-to shut out small fry rather than actually be defended before
-non-technical juries.  Perhaps RSA will undergo this test successfully,
-although the grant to "exclude others from making, using, or selling"
-the invention would then only apply to the U.S. (witness the 
-Genentech patent of the TPA molecule in the U.S. but struck down
-in Great Britain as too broad.)
-
-The concept is still exotic for those who learned in school the rule of thumb
-that one may patent "apparatus" but not an "idea".
-Apparently this all changed in Diamond v. Diehr (1981) when the U. S. Supreme
-Court reversed itself.  
-
-Scholars should consult the excellent article in the Washington and Lee
-Law Review (fall 1984, vol. 41, no. 4) by Anthony and Colwell for a
-comprehensive survey of an area which will remain murky for some time.
-
-Until the dust clears, how you approach ideas which are patented depends
-on how paranoid you are of a legal onslaught.  Arbitrary?  Yes.  But
-the patent bar the CCPA (Court of Customs and Patent Appeals)
-thanks you for any uncertainty as they, at least, stand to gain
-from any trouble.
-
-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=
-From: James A. Woods <jaw@eos.arc.nasa.gov>
-Subject: Re: Looking for C source for RSA (actually 'compress' patents)
-
-	In article <2042@eos.UUCP> you write:
-	>The concept is still exotic for those who learned in school the rule of thumb
-	>that one may patent "apparatus" but not an "idea".
-
-A rule of thumb that has never been completely valid, as any chemical
-engineer can tell you.  (Chemical processes were among the earliest patents,
-as I recall.)
-
-	ah yes -- i date myself when relaying out-of-date advice from elderly
-	attorneys who don't even specialize in patents.  one other interesting
-	class of patents include the output of optical lens design programs,
-	which yield formulae which can then fairly directly can be molded
-	into glass.  although there are restrictions on patenting equations,
-	the "embedded systems" seem to fly past the legal gauntlets.
-
-	anyway, i'm still learning about intellectual property law after
-	several conversations from a unisys (nee sperry) lawyer re 'compress'.
-
-	it's more complicated than this, but they're letting (oral
-	communication only) software versions of 'compress' slide
-	as far as licensing fees go.  this includes 'arc', 'stuffit',
-	and other commercial wrappers for 'compress'.  yet they are
-	signing up licensees for hardware chips.  hewlett-packard
-	supposedly has an active vlsi project, and unisys has
-	board-level lzw-based tape controllers.  (to build lzw into
-	a disk controller would be strange, as you'd have to build
-	in a filesystem too!)
-
- 	it's byzantine
-	that unisys is in a tiff with hp regarding the patents,
-	after discovering some sort of "compress" button on some
-	hp terminal product.  why?  well, professor abraham lempel jumped
-	from being department chairman of computer science at technion in
-	israel to sperry (where he got the first patent), but then to work
-	at hewlett-packard on sabbatical.  the second welch patent
-	is only weakly derivative of the first, so they want chip
-	licenses and hp relented.  however, everyone agrees something
-	like the current unix implementation is the way to go with
-	software, so hp (and ucb) long ago asked spencer thomas and i to sign
-	off on copyright permission (although they didn't need to, it being pd).
-	lempel, hp, and unisys grumbles they can't make money off the
-	software since a good free implementation (not the best --
-	i have more ideas!) escaped via usenet.  (lempel's own pascal
-	code was apparently horribly slow.)
-	i don't follow the ibm 'arc' legal bickering; my impression
-	is that the pc folks are making money off the archiver/wrapper
-	look/feel of the thing [if ms-dos can be said to have a look and feel]. 
-
-	now where is telebit with the compress firmware?  in a limbo
-	netherworld, probably, with sperry still welcoming outfits
-	to sign patent licenses, a common tactic to bring other small fry
-	into the fold.  the guy who crammed 12-bit compess into the modem
-	there left.  also what is transpiring with 'compress' and sys 5 rel 4?
-	beats me, but if sperry got a hold of them on these issues,
-	at&t would likely re-implement another algorithm if they
-	thought 'compress' infringes.  needful to say, i don't think
-	it does after the abovementioned legal conversation.
-	my own beliefs on whether algorithms should be patentable at all
-	change with the weather.  if the courts finally nail down
-	patent protection for algorithms, academic publication in
-	textbooks will be somewhat at odds with the engineering world,
-	where the textbook codes will simply be a big tease to get
-	money into the patent holder coffers...
-
-	oh, if you implement lzw from the patent, you won't get
-	good rates because it doesn't mention adaptive table reset,
-	lack thereof being *the* serious deficiency of thomas' first version.
-
-	now i know that patent law generally protects against independent
-	re-invention (like the 'xor' hash function pleasantly mentioned
-	in the patent [but not the paper]).
-	but the upshot is that if anyone ever wanted to sue us,
-	we're partially covered with
-	independently-developed twists, plus the fact that some of us work
-	in a bureacratic morass (as contractor to a public agency in my case).
-
-	quite a mess, huh?  i've wanted to tell someone this stuff
-	for a long time, for posterity if nothing else.
-
-james 
-