_______________________________________________________
| |
| November 1991 -==- Volume I Number 1 |
| |
| PROGRAMMING FREEDOM - online edition |
| league@prep.ai.mit.edu |
| |
| The Electronic Newsletter of |
| The League for Programming Freedom |
| 1 Kendall Sq #143, POBox #9171, Cambridge MA 02139 |
| Phone: (617) 243-4091 (voicemail only-leave your |
|address or phone number, and we'll answer your query)|
| Editor: Spike R. MacPhee (spiker@prep.ai.mit.edu) |
| Reproduction of Programming Freedom via all |
| electronic media is encouraged. |
| To reproduce a signed article individually, |
| please contact the author for permission. |
|_____________________________________________________|
<><><><><>Table of Contents<><><><><>
Election meeting notice: new location
X-Windows memorandum --==-- MIT Lab for Computer Science
LPF Protests Pike
Opinion --==-- Bill Kennedy: What LPF Should Be Doing & Editor's reply
Len Tower's Summer Vacation (?) - Speaking about and for LPF
A typical RMS speaking tour schedule
LPF at Fall '91 Comdex --==-- Chris Hofstader, LPF Secretary
Volunteer requests: speakers and publicity distributors at conferences
International Patents Treaty --==-- Jack Larsen, LPF President
LPF Boutique: LPF Tshirts, posters, postcards, and mugs
<><><><><>LPF Annual Meeting<><><><><>
The LPF annual meeting will take place at 8pm on Sunday, December
15 in the 7th floor playroom at 545 Tech Square, Cambridge,
Massachusetts. <>
<><><><><>X Window Update<><><><><>
[Because of the importance of this release, we reproduce it in its
entirety.]
Memorandum to: Members of the X Consortium September 24, 1991 From:
MIT Lab for Computer Science Subject: U. S. Patent No. 4,555,775
(Pike), Issued to AT&T on Nov. 26, 1985 for "DYNAMIC GENERATION AND
OVERLAYING OF GRAPHIC WINDOWS"
In February 1991, AT&T sent letters to MIT and to members of the
X Consortium, notifying the community that the "backing store"
functionality available in the X Window System is an implementation of
a patented AT&T invention, and that consequently, companies or
institutions commercially marketing or internally developing products
based on an X Window System implementation will need a license from
AT&T. Since MIT developed the X Window System and distributes it
widely, we were deeply concerned by AT&T's action, and we conducted a
thorough technical analysis of the patent and similar window system
technology. MIT also retained counsel to provide us with an expert
legal opinion. Both our technical analysis and the legal opinion
conclude that AT&T's claim with respect to the X Window System cannot
be sustained.
Patent #4,555,775 was applied for in 1982 by Robert Pike and
issued in 1985 to his employer, Bell Laboratories. It describes a
variation of graphics drawing algorithms that enables a single display
screen to support overlapping windows, in which several programs can
be active simultaneously. It is our opinion that this same capability
was present in window systems that predated the Bell Laboratories'
work.
The Bell Laboratories' work, the X Window System, and previous
window systems all use different variants of the same basic
methodology (storing obscured regions of windows as off-screen bit
maps). Both our legal and technical analyses agree that each of the
patent's claims is either so broad as to have been anticipated by
prior art, or so narrow as to apply only to the `775 patent's specific
algorithm and not to the X Window System.
AT&T has requested the Patent Office to open the `775 patent for
reexamination, which will give AT&T an opportunity to clarify the
patent's claims. We hope that AT&T will seek there to recognize the
contribution of the work on which it is based while not casting its
claims beyond the specific methodology involved. MIT is very willing
to work with AT&T toward reaching this goal and is exploring ways in
which this can be done.
From a broader perspective, the confusion over the `775 patent
illustrates the difficulties raised by the increasing number of
patents issued on software technology. We would welcome the
opportunity to join with AT&T, other companies, and the university
community to explore ways to alleviate these problems. Software is an
area in which prior art is often difficult to identify and in which
obviousness differs significantly from one perspective to another.
The recent proliferation of software patents is creating pressure on
software developers to seek patent protection for straightforward
ideas, and increasing pressure to claim broad applicability of
software patents, well beyond the scope of any original invention.
These practices introduce a chilling effect on university research,
and they undermine our ability to pursue ideas in a free and open
climate. In as much as these practices attack the university's
central goals and its obligation to disseminate information, they are
a matter of utmost seriousness to MIT. <>
<><><><><>LPF protests Pike<><><><><>
CAMBRIDGE, MA, November 18, 1991 -- Rob Pike, a software designer
from AT&T Bell Labs, expected to deliver an ordinary seminar on his
latest research project. Instead, he found a room filled with
programmers carrying signs to protest the consequences of his previous
project: the AT&T "backing store" patent which AT&T has used to
threaten all the members of the X Consortium, including MIT itself.
Of the approximately 80 people present at the talk, about 50
carried protest signs. The protestors did not try to interfere with
the seminar. They simply raised their signs as Pike began to speak.
This accomplished the purpose of making their ire known. <>
<><><><><>Letter<><><><><>
Guest Opinion: --==-- by former LPF member Bill Kennedy
Before I joined up there was some very interesting discussion
about LPF on a mailing list I'm on. The consensus opinion agreed
pretty closely with the preliminary material I got before I joined.
I'm in complete support of the philosophy as stated, my consulting
practice depends on my being able to produce unencumbered software
tools.
Once the mailing lists started up the discussions started
sounding like the things I was interested in but quickly deteriorated
into stereotypical usenet style chatter. It's pretty difficult to
enforce decorum when the transport is a reflector, but I find that the
contributors enforce the decorum if they are sober and professional
about what they're trying to talk about. I'm too old for the kinds of
things that the newbies and wannabes are talking about and I've got
(at least I think so) more to lose. My sole source of income is my
solo consulting practice and I take it very seriously.
I don't think that you can defeat the [business] suits with
demonstrations and tee shirts. I think that you do it kind of like
you defeat the problems of discrimination in the workplace.
Discrimination is bad for business and it doesn't make two hoots which
side of the issue you're on. Discrimination has been around since the
Old Testament but it's still bad for business. I think that the
expropriation of software techniques and the attendant extortion is
bad for business too. Businesses learn what's bad for business
through education and observation, seldom through legislation and
never from demonstrations and tee shirts...
The kinds of things that LPF should be doing is educating and
persuading. We don't have a federal, state, or local government that
knows beans about the technological realities and we're not going to
teach them or make them understand as long as the Robert Morris' and
Len Roses are their only viewport into the world where we live and
work...
If I author a book my copyright is limited to the content of the
book but not the size of paper or method of binding. I'm perfectly
free to make reasonable citations from other intellectual property
without infringing on another copyright. When you deal with machines
that can only count to one there aren't a whole lot of things as
unique as a book, play, song, poem, or other authored work. Moreover,
the real creativity is in the composite fabric of the work since its
components are pretty well understood and pretty ordinary. I
vigorously object to any person or organization claiming copyright to
something pretty well understood and pretty ordinary. When the system
fails and such a copyright is claimed then it is up to the legislature
and courts to remind the claimant their copyright is poppycock.
We can't depend on our courts or legislatures to do that today
because they are too ignorant. They can't get any better or smarter
unless/until someone can overcome their ignorance...That's where I
thought LPF came in. This is supposed to be a group of professionals
who _do_ understand the curvy and twisted passages and should be able
to explain it so that the suits have no place to hide. When the suits
have no place to hide and realize what they are doing is bad for
business they'll actually *help* us finish the education of the courts
and legislatures. This is how I perceive LPF's purpose and
responsibility but what I read is a lot of nit picking and bickering.
There's a lot of roaring and groaning about things that are 100%
peripheral to the things that affect my livelihood (and theirs too,
but they don't seem to feel it's as crucial as I do)...
The problems will not get solved with righteous indignation or
fist shaking. So what's the grey-beard master-old-hacker going to do
about it? I'm going to pretty much proceed as I have been. When a
particularly stupid piece of legislation is or is about to be
introduced I'll write my legislator. It's a simple curbstone English
description of what the bill is as contrasted with what someone
thought they understood when they wrote it. When someone infringes on
my copyright intellectual property I try to explain what they are
doing and why they shouldn't. The explanation isn't always as
moderate when it ends as it was when it started but that depends on
how ignorant, stubborn, or dishonest they are. I've made enough out
of one settlement to break me even on the others I've won (at a net
loss) but my former adversaries are better educated and less likely to
infringe again. Did this intellectual property contain components and
concepts that weren't 100% original? Of course they did, but my
copyright is on the composite work and that is a very narrow and
easily defined effort. The creative combination of proven techniques
is the copyright, not the techniques themselves.
...If my creative effort produces something that I consider to be
of value then I feel free to protect it to the extent I feel matches
its perceived value. If nobody agrees with me, then they don't use it
and don't pay for it; I had a mistaken idea of its value, but it's my
right to protect it. I've contributed my fair share into the public
domain and will continue to do so. I've also retained copyrights to
other material and will continue to do so. If some suit thinks that
he can intimidate me with a gold seal on a ribbon saying he "owns" the
binary search technique, he's crazy. If someone says I should let
anyone, willy nilly use my work, he's crazy too. I'm not really
concerned about the latter but the former has my undivided attention.
You see, that's what I thought you guys were doing. It may very
well be that it really *IS* what LPF is doing but I can't see it for
the smoke or hear it for the noise. <>
internet bill@ssbn.WLK.COM or ssbn!bill@attmail.COM
uucp {att,cs.utexas.edu,pyramid!daver}!ssbn.wlk.com!bill
<><><><><>
The Editor's reply: Bill, you have to remember that
league-tactics is an all-purpose discussion mailing list for all
aspects of software patents and look-and-feel lawsuits, as well as
members' suggestions for activities. It is, as you pointed out, an
unmoderated list for everyone, not just software consultants, so we're
not surprised that it isn't focused enough on your specific concerns.
It doesn't report on what the LPF is doing - that's what this
newsletter is for.
We *are* trying to educate and persuade: a new position paper is
coming out in a future Dr. Dobbs Journal; the Fall '91 Issues in
Science and Technology has six pages on "Why Patents Are Bad for
Software" by Garfinkel, Stallman, & Kapor, and we had a significent
presence at Fall Comdex.
We are also trying to reach the public. Demonstrations will get
10 seconds of broadcast time because of their visual nature, while
position papers never will.
LPF is still small; we want programmers to tell other programmers
to join and tell other [iterate]... so that we can get large enough to
affect legislative efforts, etc. We haven't filed amicus curae briefs
because these are usually used on appeal, and none of the
look-and-feel cases has reached that stage.
We believe that your letter, from a soon-to-be former LPF member,
will generate a productive discussion, both in and out of the
organization, as to what the LPF is, and what itshould be doing to
affect the laws on software. <>
<><><><><>Speakers<><><><><>
What I Did on My Summer Vacation --==-- by Len Tower
During a three week visit to family in the Pacific Northwest in
August, I set aside 4 days to speak on programming freedom issues. I
spoke seven times in three cities: Corvallis & Portland, OR and
Seattle, WA. Audiences included user groups, companies, and a
technical book store seminar series.
I solicited sponsors and dates by e-mailing to people in OR/WA
and asking them to put me in touch with likely sites. These people
included friends, LPF members (ask league@prep.ai.mit.edu) and GNU
volunteers (ask gnu@prep.ai.mit.edu). A local sponsor handled
publicity based on an abstract of the talk I provided. Methods used
included postings to company mailing lists and regional USENET
newsgroups, flyers, articles in company and store newsletters, and
newspaper announcements and ads.
I prepared a 40 minute talk on both LPF issues from our
newsletters and two position papers, which left plenty of time for
questions (which were often answerable from material in the position
papers that I didn't have time to cover).
When I do this next time, I'll vacation in a different month.
Many colleges are between terms at the end of August and the academic
crowds were a bit thin.
I'd like to thank all my hosts and audiences, and in particular
my lady's parents.
I urge more of you to try speaking about our issues. It's a fun,
interesting and easy way to help our cause. <>
<><><><><>Speakers<><><><><>
Richard Stallman has been doing another wave of speeches, in the
United States and Europe from late Sept. through mid--Nov. First four
talks in the Southwest, in Albuquerque, Los Alamos, Las Vegas, and
Tucson; then three in the Midwest, in La Crosse, Madison, and
Minneapolis. The talk in Las Vegas was designed to find more helpers
for the League's COMDEX activities.
Then he went to Italy, France, and England for eight more talks
and for meetings with members of Parliament in Italy and France. With
luck, LPF organizations in Italy and France will be started by this
trip. <>
<><><><><>Speaking Volunteers<><><><><>
Our members have often said that the LPF isn't visible enough.
We agree and are taking steps to change that, including finding more
volunteer speakers, establishing an online LPF online library, and a
regular newsletter.
Besides editing this newsletter, I also serve as LPF coordinator,
in which capacity I run the speaker bureau. Richard M. Stallman and
Len Tower have done the bulk of our speaking engagements to date, but
cannot be everywhere at once. Our cloning attempts, despite Richard's
views on copying, have not yet succeeded. We would like more
volunteers, with or without previous experience, to speak to people
around the world and inform them about the software look-and-feel and
patent issues. Anyone who would like to speak about the LPF's
positions, or who wants an LPF person to speak to their group, please
contact me at: spiker@prep.ai.mit.edu.
For instance, our President, Jack Larsen, can be reached at
708-698-1160, FAX at 708-698-6221 (Park Ridge, IL), or email at
jl@epsilon.eecs.nwu.edu. He would be happy to explain the legal
issues and status of court cases and treaties to groups in the region.
"I will go anywhere if travel expenses are provided. If not, I can
cover "Chicagoland", 12 million people from Milwaukee WI to Gary IN."
Spike R.
MacPhee
<><><><><>Conference Volunteers<><><><><>
We want more volunteers to hand out League materials and position
papers at computer conferences and meetings around the country and the
world. Contact league@prep.ai.mit.edu to request materials.
<><><><><>Conference Report<><><><><>
The LPF at Fall COMDEX '91 --==-- by Chris Hofstader, LPF
Secretary
This is the third consecutive year that Gordon Schantz and I have
worked the Fall COMDEX show for the LPF and easily the single most
successful.
In previous years the reactions to "Hi, I'm Chris Hofstader,
officer, director and cofounder of the League for Programming
Freedom..." were:
1989 - "League for what?" or "What Freedom?" or "So?"
1990 - "We appreciate your efforts but please don't let anyone
see you
with us." or "Is that GNU?" or "Isn't that Kapor's
group?"
Now I can report that the visibility and respectability of the
LPF has grown profoundly. At one point we had everybody in Borland's,
Microsoft's, Stuart Alsop's, and Windows World Magazine's booths
wearing LPF "fanged apple" badges.
Thanks to our ten volunteers, an organization as small as the LPF
had terrific visibility. Even the hostess at the Las Vegas Hilton
coffee shop was distributing our buttons. More seriously, I was
invited to many private parties and had access to many people who lead
the industrial side of this business. The response was very positive.
We will see more League publicity and corporate support as a result.
<>
<><><><><>Article<><><><><>
COPYING IN THE NEW WORLD ORDER --==-- by Jack Larsen, LPF
President
We are told that we are living in a "new world order". In 1992
the European Community will be one trading entity, and a real factor
for Americans who would trade abroad. Multinational companies welcome
the reduction in legal formalities regarding patents, trade marks and
copy rights. What is not so obvious is that the proliferation of trade
treaties has a direct impact on our internal law.
The battle for programming freedom has been elevated from the
U.S. District Court in Boston to the world stage; meanwhile Borland,
the U.S. Copyright Office, and ten prominent professors of copyright
law have asked the District Court to reconsider its Paperback decision
of last year.
The International Agenda is marked by a number of developments
which are approaching international agreement. The first is an
extensive amendment of the heretofore innocuous Treaty of Paris which
is intended to "harmonize" the patent systems of the world. This
treaty and the Berne Convention on Copyright are both administered by
the World Intellectual Property Organization (WIPO). This treaty has
been under consideration for several years. A first session of the
Diplomatic Conference was concluded in June, and a second session is
to be scheduled after conclusion of the Uruguay Round trade talks in
the GATT. The General Agreement on Tariffs and Trade, and the trade
agreements thereunder are the second major development. The U.S.
Congress has approved a "fast track" process to expedite approval for
agreements in the Uruguay involving patents.
New Trade agreements call for stringent reciprocal enforcement of
intellectual property "protection". Recent negotiations with China
became stalled by the U.S. insistence on criminal penalties for
software copying. This may be the rationale behind inclusion in the
"Violent Crimes Act" passed by the Senate of long jail terms for
copying software.
Thirdly, the U.S. Commissioner of Patents and Trademarks has
appointed an Advisory Commission on Patent Law Reform the purpose of
which according to Commissioner Manbeck is to help "consensus forming"
for the treaty.
In the first session of the Diplomatic Conference the United
States was alone to oppose the first-to-file rule of Article 9 of the
Treaty. Article 10 which provided that "Patent protection shall be
available for inventions, whether they concern products or processes
in all fields of technology." was not supported, and remains for
resolution in the second session. This raises the hope that computer
programs may be excluded from patent protection. All in all
Commissioner Manbeck did not encourage the delegates to expect the
United States to make fundamental changes in its laws, "unless others
can likewise agree to satisfy our needs."
An American delegate reporting on the meeting concluded: "It is
apparent that the likelihood of concluding a treaty in this area
which, in its totality, would be acceptable to the United States will
require the United States to embrace a first-to-file system of
awarding patents". It has always been under stood that the language
of the Constitutional Grant bars the adoption of a first-to-file
system. If the Advisory Commission can help the Commissioner convince
the public that the gains from the treaty will outweigh the damage to
the Constitution, the treaty will make it all possible...
...Until the new world order, our commercial treaties did not
challenge settled constitutional rights...
...Congress itself was moved to create a special new kind of
monopoly...the Semiconductor Chip Protection Act of 1984, creating a
new kind of intellectual property not authorized by the copyright and
patent clauses of the Constitution,
The new Act provides for registration with the Copyright Office
and provides a term of protection limited to ten years. This law
aimed at the emerging semiconductor giants of the Pacific Rim was
clearly to be international in scope, and intended that in any
challenge to the constitutionality of the law, there would be a treaty
to support the creation of the new monopolies...The Diplomatic
Conference convened by the World Intellectual Property Organization
(WIPO) in May 1989, adopted a "Treaty on Intellectual Property in
respect of integrated circuits". This new treaty was approved by the
votes of 49 nations. However, the United States and Japan voted
against the text finally approved. Both countries would not approve
the draft provisions for the requirement of "non-voluntary licenses"
under certain circumstances of National import. The U.S. and Japan
control around 90 percent of the world production and trade in
semiconductors.
The treaty is available to the United States if it is ever
needed. It has importance for several reasons. First, it is an
example of the internationalization of the creation of a new kind of
monopoly. Secondly the Treaty was prepared in a very short time, even
before most countries legislated on the matter.
Thirdly, while apparently of very narrow scope the negotiations
were led by the United States establishing precedents for other areas
of intellectual property and giving a new role in the field to GATT.
Fourth, it contains rules for the settlement of disputes applicable to
GATT and other intellectual property contexts, and finally developing
nations took an active role in the negotiations. This treaty provided
a laboratory for the drafting of a new and wide-ranging treaty
purporting to harmonize patent laws between nations. It shows the way
to create new monopolies ,,,covering whatever line of manufacture,
trade or business which may be wrapped in a treaty package.
A New WIPO treaty was the subject of a "Diplomatic Conference
begun June 3, 1991 at The Hague, and now adjourned. While seemingly
technical, and not commanding the attention of policy makers outside
of the core of "experts", patent attorneys, multinational
corporations, and patent office bureaucrats, this new Treaty has a
potential for reversing fundamental principles of American Patent law.
It does not represent mature thought on such problems as software
patents, the patentability of life forms, the standards of invention
and novelty and the duration of the monopo lies. The planned WIPO
patent harmonization treaty will cause serious problems for software
developers in the United States and wherever it is adopted. The
treaty would both aggravate the problem (by making patents last
longer) and withdraw presently available remedies, not the least of
which is an appeal to the Supreme Court. That Court has held many
computer programs to be unpatentable as following outside of the
"useful arts"; but the treaty would include "all fields of
technology". Another provision of the treaty would make matters
worse, by making patents last longer, extending the life of a patent
to 20 years or more. In an age when the rapid advance of technology
makes most technology obsolete much more quickly than in the past, it
would make more sense (in most fields) to shorten the duration of
patents.
The proposed treaty would make patents easier to acquire, easier
to enforce, and broader in coverage. For example the patent on a
method would carry with it the product of that process, whether
already known, or produced by a non-infringing process, and may permit
and require patenting subject matter beyond the present constitutional
power of the United States.
Software patents are a new experiment which is working out badly.
The United States should not make the experiment permanent before the
results are known. And the Executive Branch should not use the "FAST
TRACK" ratification process to withdraw the issue from the realm of
public debate. Properly, the patent system is not just to encourage
inventors, not just to enrich entrepreneurs, not just to keep lawyers
busy, its purpose is to "promote science and the useful arts" for all
of us by the teaching of the inventions and discoveries. As the time
for signing this treaty approaches, it is well past time for the
general bar, and the citizenry to be made aware of what is afoot...
"Strict constructionists" and "original intent diviners" offer
the gadgeteers no more hope. As Justice O'Connor points out: "Today's
patent statute is remarkably similar to the law as known to Jefferson
in 1793". The original intent of the signatory states is to be found
in the patent laws of the colonies, which illuminate what is penumbra
in the Constitution's patent clauses. The founding fathers were
gentry in an agricultural country. Well aware of the burden of Crown
imposed monopolies, Congress required in the very first patent act
that the invention be "sufficiently useful and important" to merit the
14 year right of exclusion under that act. After the Court examined
the premises in Bonito Boats, it is clear that it will not repeal 200
years of the American patent system, which for much of that time led
the world. But the pressure by the peddlers of gadgets and the titans
of industry for new, cheaper, and more broadly applied monopolies is
unrelenting. For them a better way has been found. A way that takes
the Supreme Court, and the House of Representatives out of the loop.
The revision of the Treaty of Paris, to be considered by WIPO in the
Second Half of the Diplomatic Conference begun this year at The Hague,
and adjourned to a time next year and place yet to be announced. The
treaty would impose an increased minimum term for patents, highly
inappropriate in view of the accelerated pace of science and
technology. It would grant patents to the first-to-file, rather than
the first inventor, thus diverting into a race to the Patent Office,
energy which better may be devoted to science.
The delegates to the several meetings of "Experts" leading up to
this Conference, with few exceptions have been patent professionals,
wholly unprepared to appreciate the economic and social impact of the
patent system, concerned only with the cost and efficiency of
extracting the monopolies from the governments. With the new Budget
bill, our Patent and Trademark Office is to be funded by "user fees".
The Patent Offices of the World, by this proposed treaty, would be
combined by the special patent tribunals of the world joined in this
device "to get a broader, looser conception of patents than the
Constitution contemplates", again to rephrase Mr. Justice Douglas.
The indirect cost of patent monopolies, like the cost of the
Savings and Loan mess is "off budget" but it should not be ignored.
The indiscriminate creation of exclusive privileges through cheap and
easy patents, in the words of Justice Bradley a century ago: "creates
a class of speculative schemers who make it their business to watch
the advancing wave of improvement, and gather its foam in the form of
patented monopolies, which enable them to lay a heavy tax upon the
industry of the country, without contributing anything to the real
advancement of the arts. It embarrasses the hones pursuit of business
with fears and apprehensions of concealed liens and unknown
liabilities to lawsuits and vexatious accountings for profits made in
good faith."
In no area of technology has this scheming been more blatant than
in the proliferation of so-called "inventions" and patent applications
involving computer programs. Already the practical difficulty
experienced by the Patent and Trademark Office in the "examination" of
such applications has resulted in a de facto repeal of the
Constitutionally mandated Section 103 of the law. In the new world
order those schemers will more likely be living and working in Bombay,
Bangkok, or Beijing, than in Canton, Cleveland, or Cincinnati.
...Yet the treaty loop hole threatens our fundamental structure.
The greater iniquity is that a Treaty, unlike a statute or even the
Constitution cannot be amended, or its burdens ameliorated by the
actions of our People or our Congress. We will be held to the
least-common-denominator of the world community. <>
<><><><><>LPF Boutique Materials Available from the
League<><><><><>
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 the price of $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. Same terms as the stickers.
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. We used such posters to
make signs for the protest rally. If you need some, talk with the
League and we'll work out a deal.
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. Not available until Feb. 92.
You can order a mug for $10, nonmembers $12.. They will not be
ready until Jan 1992. T-Shirts
Michael Ernst has produced t-shirts with Liberty and ``League for
Programming Freedom'' on the front and ``Stop Software Monopolies'' on
the back. (The back slogan will change from time to time.) You can
order shirts by mail from the League for $12 (which includes $2 for
mailing). Available colors are yellow, blue and tan; if you specify a
color, we will assume you would rather have the other color than no
shirt. If you want a chosen color or nothing, say so explicitly.
Please specify the shirt size! (M, L or XL.)
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 <>
<><><><><>Newsletter Volunteers<><><><><>
We would like volunteers to work on the newsletter. Our special
thanks to Betty Lou McClanahan and Carol Botteron for proofreading and
editing help with this issue. Contact Programming Freedom at
league@prep.ai.mit.edu