RE: [dvd-discuss] Gedanken Experiment -Unix and Norton

[microlenz(at)earthlink.net]

On 11 Jul 2003 at 13:20, Richard Hartman wrote:

Subject:        	RE: [dvd-discuss] Gedanken Experiment -Unix and Norton
Date sent:      	Fri, 11 Jul 2003 13:20:00 -0700
From:           	"Richard Hartman" <hartman@onetouch.com>
To:             	<dvd-discuss@eon.law.harvard.edu>
Send reply to:  	dvd-discuss@eon.law.harvard.edu

> 
> 
> 
> > -----Original Message-----
> > From: microlenz@earthlink.net [mailto:microlenz@earthlink.net]
> > Sent: Thursday, July 10, 2003 7:10 PM
> > To: dvd-discuss@eon.law.harvard.edu
> > Subject: RE: [dvd-discuss] Gedanken Experiment -Unix and Norton
> > 
> > 
> > On 10 Jul 2003 at 9:36, Richard Hartman wrote:
> > 
> > Subject:        	RE: [dvd-discuss] Gedanken Experiment 
> > -Unix and Norton
> > Date sent:      	Thu, 10 Jul 2003 09:36:44 -0700
> > From:           	"Richard Hartman" <hartman@onetouch.com>
> > To:             	<dvd-discuss@eon.law.harvard.edu>
> > Send reply to:  	dvd-discuss@eon.law.harvard.edu
> > 
> > > 
> > > 
> > > > -----Original Message-----
> > > > From: microlenz@earthlink.net [mailto:microlenz@earthlink.net]
> > > > Sent: Wednesday, July 09, 2003 7:58 PM
> > > > To: dvd-discuss@eon.law.harvard.edu
> > > > Subject: RE: [dvd-discuss] Gedanken Experiment -Unix and Norton
> > > > 
> > > > 
> > > > On 9 Jul 2003 at 13:28, Richard Hartman wrote:
> > > > 
> > > > Subject:        	RE: [dvd-discuss] Gedanken Experiment 
> > > > -Unix and Norton
> > > > Date sent:      	Wed, 9 Jul 2003 13:28:03 -0700
> > > > From:           	"Richard Hartman" <hartman@onetouch.com>
> > > > To:             	<dvd-discuss@eon.law.harvard.edu>
> > > > Send reply to:  	dvd-discuss@eon.law.harvard.edu
> > > > 
> > > > > 
> > > > > 
> > > > > 
> > > > > > -----Original Message-----
> > > > > > From: John Zulauf [mailto:johnzu@ia.nsc.com]
> > > > > > Sent: Wednesday, July 09, 2003 8:43 AM
> > > > > > To: dvd-discuss@eon.law.harvard.edu
> > > > > > Subject: Re: [dvd-discuss] Gedanken Experiment -Unix 
> > and Norton
> > > > > > 
> > > > > > 
> > > > > > 
> > > > > > 
> > > > > > microlenz@earthlink.net wrote:
> > > > > > 
> > > > > > This one piece out of order...
> > > > > > 
> > > > > > > ... the kind of editing that would be
> > > > > > > necessary to transform database to a copyrightable work 
> > > > > > would also negate the
> > > > > > > utility of a database and 
> > > > > > 
> > > > > > If you define database narrowly to only mean a complete 
> > > > > > transcription of
> > > > > > offline records into online form, I agree.  I think 
> > the term is
> > > > > > broader.  Back to the "Norton" example, Norton (check their 
> > > > > > website) has
> > > > > > decided (editorially) that "Spyware" like Gator et. al. is 
> > > > > > not "a virus"
> > > > > > and therefore won't include it in it's virus signature 
> > > > database, nor
> > > > > > remove it (grumble, complain).  While the virus 
> > > > definition file *is* a
> > > > > > database, it reflects a set of conscious editorial 
> > > > decisions on what
> > > > > > does and does not constitute a virus.
> > > > > 
> > > > > Moreover, the issue of _how_ to describe the virus signature
> > > > > also involves selection.  The 5th and 8th bytes?  The 12th
> > > > > and 57th?  The combination resulting by adding the 38th byte
> > > > > to 57 and dividing by 2?  Each "fact" in their database is 
> > > > > a result of analysis and choice on the part of their
> > > > > virus researchers.
> > > > 
> > > > That's called an algorithm....not copyrightable....I haven't 
> > > > seen the more 
> > > > recent case but at one time the Supremes ruled that an 
> > > > algorithm seem to be a 
> > > > fact of nature and not even patentable.
> > > > 
> > > > 
> > > 
> > > Not all virii could be identified by the same algorithm.
> > > Each virus must be individually analyzed and a signature
> > > that would identify it discerned.  This is not an algorithmic
> > > process -- it is research.
> > 
> > Actually, it must be one set of algorithms that are data 
> > driven (although I 
> > assume that Norton etc update the DLLS as well when theyneed 
> > a new algorithm. 
> > Everything else is data driven)
> 
> Once the signature is discovered and encoded, _applying_ 
> that encoding to check against a target file is algorithmic.
> 
> However, the nature of the signature itself -- and especially
> the _discovery_ of that signature -- is an independant research
> effort each time.

And the purpose of research is to uncover facts.

> 
> > 
> > Once discovered becomes a fact.
> > 
> 
> In that light, "Gone With the Wind", once written, is a fact.
> 

Not even Specious. facts are written down but they are not written.

So Badassvirusnumber324643 has 232323232 in its object code look for 
&%UGBJBBOIYB*IHIU if you find that too starting at 2343H you've got it! That's 
a fact. No creativity. No expression and nothing else.. Look science has been 
done for science sake for centuries. So why do we need to provide protection 
for finding facts NOW? 
> -- 
> -Richard M. Hartman
> hartman@onetouch.com
> 
> 186,000 mi/sec: not just a good idea, it's the LAW!