I certainly agree with "Enemy of the Net" by Jeff Barbian in the May 2000 issue of Computer User. Too many groups, both public and private, are taking liberties with our liberties and must be stopped. However, these sorts of articles always end (as this one did) by showing ways to remain anonymous while surfing and sending messages. This is equally disturbing to me.

Like it or not, anyone leaving the security of their home must conform to accepted social norms. We can't damage things that are not ours and we aren't allowed to run down the street naked and cursing. In a virtual world, this is equally true. However, by simply becoming anonymous, I can send you viruses or unsolicited pornographic e-mails and generally harass you without fear of identification or reprisal.

Despite our fears of government or corporate snooping, we must create a way that, with proper authorization, any message can be traced to its author. I think of it as similar to having a driver's license. When questioned by authorized persons, I must produce identification that can be used to assure that sanctions can be associated with my public behavior. I do not have to produce such identification to corporations or other unauthorized persons if I choose not to.

Simply letting everyone become anonymous will not be the solution to the privacy problem.
David Brzezinski
daylily@ic.net

The article, "Patently Absurd" in your May 2000 issue argued that U.S. patent and trademark law was "at odds with common sense" because of all of the ridiculous business-method and software patents being issued. I agree with the assertion that the Patent and Trademark Office is issuing many questionable patents, but I don't think it is the fault of our patent laws. Our patent laws have been virtually unchanged for more than 100 years, and we have been the most innovative country in the world due to our excellent patent system. The problem with the questionable patents is the poor searches being done and the unqualified personnel in the PTO.

To be eligible for a patent, the invention must be novel and not obvious to someone with ordinary skill in the field of the invention. What's wrong with this excellent and proven standard? The questionable patents do not claim nonobvious inventions, and that is not the fault of the law, but rather the fault of the PTO personnel and its search files, which have not kept up with modern technology.
David Pressman
DavidP@PatentItYourself.com

Many thanks for the May issue of ComputerUser, and in particular, the excellent articles by Joe Rudich, Linda Dailey Paulson, and Cynthia Kurkowski. You presented a very nicely done overview on the implications of intellectual property law in cyberspace.

We have the misfortune of living in "interesting times." Cyberspace has magnified the tension between ownership of ideas and their public use. On one pole, we have the Napsters and Gnutellas making everything free by sheer volume of unauthorized copying. On the other pole, the technology can enable pay-per-use schemes much more thoroughly than with traditional media. However this goes, it will have deep implications for a democratic society.

And unfortunately, this is one of those issues fraught with multiplying details, and a Russian novel's worth of interested parties-kind of like forming a national health policy. Solutions are tough when it's a daunting prospect just to grasp the scope of the problems. However difficult, information and public awareness is essential. So thanks again for making this the theme for the May issue.
John Kwasnik
jkwasnik@jps.net