Aho Corasick source code needed, please help

[Seth]

I am in need of source code for the Aho Corasick algorithm. I have
tried searching the web but can't seem to find any code.

Is there a good site for c code I can search?

Thanks in advance.

[osmium]

Seth writes:

I am in need of source code for the Aho Corasick algorithm. I have
tried searching the web but can't seem to find any code.

Is there a good site for c code I can search?

There are useful hits, but not necessarily source code, for < aho corasick>
on Google.

[pete]

osmium wrote:

Seth writes:

I am in need of source code for the Aho Corasick algorithm. I have
tried searching the web but can't seem to find any code.

Is there a good site for c code I can search?
There are useful hits, but not necessarily source code,
for < aho corasick> on Google.

The correct way to search for code,
is to put the word "code" in your search.

http://www.google.com/search?hl=en&i...algorithm+code

Aho Corasick algorithm code. Results 1 - 10 of about 1,100.
Search took 0.13 seconds.

http://compilers.iecc.com/comparch/article/94-06-032
The Knuth-Morris-Pratt and Aho-Corasick algorithms performed linearly and
consistently (on widely varying keyword sets), as their theoretical
running time predicts. The Commentz-Walter algorithm (and its variants)
displayed more interesting behaviour, greatly out-performing even the best
Aho-Corasick variant on a large portion of the input data. The
recommendations section of this paper details the conditions under which a
particular algorithm should be chosen.
\end{abstract}

The report can be obtained by anonymous ftp from:
ftp.win.tue.nl (also known as 131.155.70.100)
in directory:
pub/techreports/pi/pattm/bench
Files WARRANTY (says that there is NO warranty)
pattperf...
pattmkit.tar.gz (contains the C code)

--
pete

[osmium]

pete wrote:

There are useful hits, but not necessarily source code,
for < aho corasick> on Google.

The correct way to search for code,
is to put the word "code" in your search.

I wasn't *trying* to find code. The only reason I tried at all was because
I thought there might likely be a spelling error in Corasick.

[pete]

osmium wrote:

pete wrote:

There are useful hits, but not necessarily source code,
for < aho corasick> on Google.

The correct way to search for code,
is to put the word "code" in your search.

I wasn't *trying* to find code.

OP was.

--
pete

[Seth]

pete <pf*****@mindspring.com> wrote in message news:<40***********@mindspring.com>...

osmium wrote:

pete wrote:

> There are useful hits, but not necessarily source code,
> for < aho corasick> on Google.

The correct way to search for code,
is to put the word "code" in your search.

I wasn't *trying* to find code.

OP was.

Thanks for the help, I checked out that code but it is all
copyrighted, which means they might as well have not even posted it as
it is useless.

Is there any source where I can get free, uncopyrighted code? Or
should I just buy a book and write the code myself? Or is that in
violation of the book's copyright?

I have read about 2 dozen papers on the subject of string matching.
Every paper is about how someone CLAIMS they can beat the AC
algorithm. No evidence is given. No proof. No source code. No
independent tests. No way for the reader to test. Just their
bragging, basically saying "mine is bigger than yours and you'll just
have to believe me."

A typical example is Mike Fisk and George Varghese and their paper
"Applying Fast String Matching to Intrusion Detection." They, of
course, claim they can beat AC, and even have some cute little graphs.
They offer no proof of this claim, of course, and no source code, no
way to test it, and no evidence they ever tested it themselves. But,
they claim they will release the code in a library. This paper was
written in 2001. Have they released the library yet? Nope. I
emailed them both, and they both ignored my request.

At best, they are useless wastes of my time that have contributed
nothing to the world of computer science other than empty brags. At
worst, they are liars.

I'm starting to think I should apply for a grant, spend the money in
Tahiti, and then write a paper claiming I can beat AC.

[Alan Balmer]

On 4 Feb 2004 11:14:59 -0800, sk***********@yahoo.com (Seth) wrote:

Thanks for the help, I checked out that code but it is all
copyrighted, which means they might as well have not even posted it as
it is useless.
Not necessarily. You can use the ideas expressed by the code, you just
have to find your own expression of those ideas. If you want to use
the code as written, or modify the code, contact the copyright holder.
They may make it available with a free license.
Is there any source where I can get free, uncopyrighted code?
No. All code is copyrighted automatically as soon as it's expressed in
tangible form (including yours;-). However, copyrighted code can be
free, depending on the wishes of the copyright holder.
Or
should I just buy a book and write the code myself? Or is that in
violation of the book's copyright?

If you use the ideas in the book and write the code yourself, there's
no violation. If you simply copy code from the book, there probably
is, depending on the terms set by the copyright holder.

--
Al Balmer
Balmer Consulting
re************************@att.net

[Mark McIntyre]

On 4 Feb 2004 11:14:59 -0800, in comp.lang.c , sk***********@yahoo.com
(Seth) wrote:

Is there any source where I can get free, uncopyrighted code?
thats 2 questions:

q1) where can I get uncopyrighted code?
a1) you can't - anything anyone writes down is copyrighted to them,
including this email, which is mostly copyrighted to me.

q2) where can I get free code?
a2) many authors make their code freely available. Its possible that
the authors you found do this too - check with them.
Or should I just buy a book and write the code myself?
that would be a better idea anyway.
Or is that in violation of the book's copyright?

if you copy enough of the book verbatim, you're breaching copyright.
"Fair use" permits you to copy reasonable extracts however.

--
Mark McIntyre
CLC FAQ <http://www.eskimo.com/~scs/C-faq/top.html>
CLC readme: <http://www.angelfire.com/ms3/bchambless0/welcome_to_clc.html>
----== Posted via Newsfeed.Com - Unlimited-Uncensored-Secure Usenet News==----
http://www.newsfeed.com The #1 Newsgroup Service in the World! >100,000 Newsgroups
---= 19 East/West-Coast Specialized Servers - Total Privacy via Encryption =---

[Keith Thompson]

Alan Balmer <al******@att.net> writes:

On 4 Feb 2004 11:14:59 -0800, sk***********@yahoo.com (Seth) wrote:

[...]

Is there any source where I can get free, uncopyrighted code?

No. All code is copyrighted automatically as soon as it's expressed in
tangible form (including yours;-). However, copyrighted code can be
free, depending on the wishes of the copyright holder.

The owner of a piece of code (or any copyrightable work) can
explicitly release it to the public domain. Such code is not covered
by copyright.

This is actually fairly rare; works don't become public domain unless
the author explicitly releases them or the copyright expires. I don't
think any C code has existed long enough for its copyright to expire.

There's a great deal of *free* code; it's covered by copyright and by
a license that explicitly allows certain uses.

One exception is Doug Gwyn's public domain Q8 library, available at
<http://www.lysator.liu.se/c/q8/>.

Disclaimer: I am not a lawyer, and this is not an appropriate forum
for discussing legal issues. I mention this only to clarify what's
already been said. Do not depend on the correctness of anything I say
about intellectual property law, other than this sentence.

--
Keith Thompson (The_Other_Keith) ks***@mib.org <http://www.ghoti.net/~kst>
San Diego Supercomputer Center <*> <http://www.sdsc.edu/~kst>
Schroedinger does Shakespeare: "To be *and* not to be"

[Mark McIntyre]

On Thu, 05 Feb 2004 21:40:27 GMT, in comp.lang.c , Keith Thompson
<ks***@mib.org> wrote:

Alan Balmer <al******@att.net> writes:

On 4 Feb 2004 11:14:59 -0800, sk***********@yahoo.com (Seth) wrote:[...]

>Is there any source where I can get free, uncopyrighted code?

No. All code is copyrighted automatically as soon as it's expressed in
tangible form (including yours;-). However, copyrighted code can be
free, depending on the wishes of the copyright holder.

The owner of a piece of code (or any copyrightable work) can
explicitly release it to the public domain. Such code is not covered
by copyright.

I'm not sure thats quite right. You can release it to the PD, but you
still have copyright. Its an innate property of your own work.
This is actually fairly rare; works don't become public domain unless
the author explicitly releases them or the copyright expires. I don't
think any C code has existed long enough for its copyright to expire.

70 years after the author's death? Soonest would be ~2045 I guess...
--
Mark McIntyre
CLC FAQ <http://www.eskimo.com/~scs/C-faq/top.html>
CLC readme: <http://www.angelfire.com/ms3/bchambless0/welcome_to_clc.html>
----== Posted via Newsfeed.Com - Unlimited-Uncensored-Secure Usenet News==----
http://www.newsfeed.com The #1 Newsgroup Service in the World! >100,000 Newsgroups
---= 19 East/West-Coast Specialized Servers - Total Privacy via Encryption =---

[Keith Thompson]

Mark McIntyre <ma**********@spamcop.net> writes:

On Thu, 05 Feb 2004 21:40:27 GMT, in comp.lang.c , Keith Thompson
<ks***@mib.org> wrote:

[...]

The owner of a piece of code (or any copyrightable work) can
explicitly release it to the public domain. Such code is not covered
by copyright.

I'm not sure thats quite right. You can release it to the PD, but you
still have copyright. Its an innate property of your own work.

I think it's right, but I could easily be mistaken. Blah blah
disclaimer blah blah.

--
Keith Thompson (The_Other_Keith) ks***@mib.org <http://www.ghoti.net/~kst>
San Diego Supercomputer Center <*> <http://www.sdsc.edu/~kst>
Schroedinger does Shakespeare: "To be *and* not to be"

[Martin Dickopp]

Mark McIntyre <ma**********@spamcop.net> writes:

On Thu, 05 Feb 2004 21:40:27 GMT, in comp.lang.c , Keith Thompson
<ks***@mib.org> wrote:

The owner of a piece of code (or any copyrightable work) can
explicitly release it to the public domain.
In the USA, yes. In most European countries, no. Not sure about the rest
of the world.
Such code is not covered by copyright.

Correct.
I'm not sure thats quite right. You can release it to the PD, but you
still have copyright.
If you release a work in the public domain (assuming it's possible at
all in your jurisdiction), you give up your copyright by definition of
public domain. A work cannot simultaneously be copyrighted and in the
public domain.
Its an innate property of your own work.
In the USA, no: copyrights can be completely transfered or given up. The
European coypright tradition distiguishes between "author's rights" and
"usage rights." The latter can be transfered, sold, etc., but not the
former.
70 years after the author's death? Soonest would be ~2045 I guess...

Yes, but only in the unlikely case that this period of time (recently
extended to 90 years in the USA, retroactively covering all works that
were about to enter the public domain, BTW) will not be further extended
until then.

Martin

[Joona I Palaste]

Martin Dickopp <ex****************@zero-based.org> scribbled the following:

Mark McIntyre <ma**********@spamcop.net> writes:

On Thu, 05 Feb 2004 21:40:27 GMT, in comp.lang.c , Keith Thompson
<ks***@mib.org> wrote:

The owner of a piece of code (or any copyrightable work) can
explicitly release it to the public domain.

In the USA, yes. In most European countries, no. Not sure about the rest
of the world.

You should see the discussion on the comp.sys.amiga.games group. People
claim that old Amiga games, no longer on the market, are abandonware,
and thus not covered by copyright. The fact that there is no such legal
status as "abandonware" does not deter them. Apparently they think that
because the concept "abandonware" has a name, it's legally recognised.

--
/-- Joona Palaste (pa*****@cc.helsinki.fi) ------------- Finland --------\
\-- http://www.helsinki.fi/~palaste --------------------- rules! --------/
"O pointy birds, O pointy-pointy. Anoint my head, anointy-nointy."
- Dr. Michael Hfuhruhurr

[osmium]

Martin Dickopp writes:

70 years after the author's death? Soonest would be ~2045 I guess...

Yes, but only in the unlikely case that this period of time (recently
extended to 90 years in the USA, retroactively covering all works that
were about to enter the public domain, BTW) will not be further extended
until then.

AFAIK US copyright law is designed, and modified as necessary, so Mickey
Mouse will never lose its copyright. Mickey Mouse was born about 1928, so,
from here, it looks like anything published after 1928 will *never* lose its
copyright. Mickey Mouse seems to have a lot of friends in high places. But
one can lose copyright as a result of inattention or dying

Note that in the US there are at least three distinct sets of intellectual
property laws: trademarks, patents and copyright.

IANAL. Thank God!

[CBFalconer]

Joona I Palaste wrote:

Martin Dickopp <ex****************@zero-based.org> scribbled

Mark McIntyre <ma**********@spamcop.net> writes:

Keith Thompson <ks***@mib.org> wrote: The owner of a piece of code (or any copyrightable work) can
explicitly release it to the public domain.

In the USA, yes. In most European countries, no. Not sure about
the rest of the world.

You should see the discussion on the comp.sys.amiga.games group.
People claim that old Amiga games, no longer on the market, are
abandonware, and thus not covered by copyright. The fact that
there is no such legal status as "abandonware" does not deter
them. Apparently they think that because the concept
"abandonware" has a name, it's legally recognised.

In practice, and until and if there is money to be made, they are
right. Once someone can make any money (net) all rights
automatically regain full force :-)

There are people around making a living from this concept,
especially in the field of patents.

--
Chuck F (cb********@yahoo.com) (cb********@worldnet.att.net)
Available for consulting/temporary embedded and systems.
<http://cbfalconer.home.att.net> USE worldnet address!

[Dan Pop]

In <fe********************************@4ax.com> Mark McIntyre <ma**********@spamcop.net> writes:

On Thu, 05 Feb 2004 21:40:27 GMT, in comp.lang.c , Keith Thompson
<ks***@mib.org> wrote:

Alan Balmer <al******@att.net> writes:

On 4 Feb 2004 11:14:59 -0800, sk***********@yahoo.com (Seth) wrote:

[...]

>Is there any source where I can get free, uncopyrighted code?

No. All code is copyrighted automatically as soon as it's expressed in
tangible form (including yours;-). However, copyrighted code can be
free, depending on the wishes of the copyright holder.

The owner of a piece of code (or any copyrightable work) can
explicitly release it to the public domain. Such code is not covered
by copyright.

I'm not sure thats quite right. You can release it to the PD, but you
still have copyright. Its an innate property of your own work.

As usual, our resident idiot couldn't miss an opportunity to display his
ignorance.

Dan
--
Dan Pop
DESY Zeuthen, RZ group
Email: Da*****@ifh.de

[Alan Balmer]

On Thu, 05 Feb 2004 21:40:27 GMT, Keith Thompson <ks***@mib.org>
wrote:

Alan Balmer <al******@att.net> writes:

On 4 Feb 2004 11:14:59 -0800, sk***********@yahoo.com (Seth) wrote:

[...]

>Is there any source where I can get free, uncopyrighted code?

No. All code is copyrighted automatically as soon as it's expressed in
tangible form (including yours;-). However, copyrighted code can be
free, depending on the wishes of the copyright holder.

The owner of a piece of code (or any copyrightable work) can
explicitly release it to the public domain. Such code is not covered
by copyright.

Correct, of course. As you say, it's rare - even people who want to
give away their software often want to control its use to some extent.

I was a bit surprised at the number of hits Google returns for "public
domain software." On investigation, many of the references turned out
not to be truly public domain, but quite a number are. Many of these
are academically produced, highly specialized programs.

--
Al Balmer
Balmer Consulting
re************************@att.net

[Mark McIntyre]

On Fri, 6 Feb 2004 05:28:40 -0800, in comp.lang.c , "osmium"
<r1********@comcast.net> wrote:

Martin Dickopp writes:

> 70 years after the author's death? Soonest would be ~2045 I guess...

Yes, but only in the unlikely case that this period of time (recently
extended to 90 years in the USA, retroactively covering all works that
were about to enter the public domain, BTW) will not be further extended
until then.

AFAIK US copyright law is designed, and modified as necessary, so Mickey
Mouse will never lose its copyright.

AFAIR copyright is actually governed by the hague convention. While
individual countries can introduce stricter laws, internationally I
can, 70 years after Walt's death, start making cartoons starring a
mouse called mickey.
--
Mark McIntyre
CLC FAQ <http://www.eskimo.com/~scs/C-faq/top.html>
CLC readme: <http://www.angelfire.com/ms3/bchambless0/welcome_to_clc.html>
----== Posted via Newsfeed.Com - Unlimited-Uncensored-Secure Usenet News==----
http://www.newsfeed.com The #1 Newsgroup Service in the World! >100,000 Newsgroups
---= 19 East/West-Coast Specialized Servers - Total Privacy via Encryption =---

[Joona I Palaste]

Mark McIntyre <ma**********@spamcop.net> scribbled the following:

On Fri, 6 Feb 2004 05:28:40 -0800, in comp.lang.c , "osmium"
<r1********@comcast.net> wrote:

Martin Dickopp writes:

> 70 years after the author's death? Soonest would be ~2045 I guess...

Yes, but only in the unlikely case that this period of time (recently
extended to 90 years in the USA, retroactively covering all works that
were about to enter the public domain, BTW) will not be further extended
until then.
AFAIK US copyright law is designed, and modified as necessary, so Mickey
Mouse will never lose its copyright.

AFAIR copyright is actually governed by the hague convention. While
individual countries can introduce stricter laws, internationally I
can, 70 years after Walt's death, start making cartoons starring a
mouse called mickey.

The Disney corporation has been very dutiful in renewing its patents.
At least in the USA, "Mickey Mouse" will still belong to the Disney
corporation in 2400. That the same corporation made heaps of money
reusing children's faerytales whose own patents had expired makes this
quite ironic. Maybe those children's faerytales will soon be patented
by Disney and will require royalties to be expressed in any form?

--
/-- Joona Palaste (pa*****@cc.helsinki.fi) ------------- Finland --------\
\-- http://www.helsinki.fi/~palaste --------------------- rules! --------/
"Bad things only happen to scoundrels."
- Moominmamma

[osmium]

Joona I Palaste writes:

The Disney corporation has been very dutiful in renewing its patents.
At least in the USA, "Mickey Mouse" will still belong to the Disney
corporation in 2400. That the same corporation made heaps of money
reusing children's faerytales whose own patents had expired makes this
quite ironic. Maybe those children's faerytales will soon be patented
by Disney and will require royalties to be expressed in any form?

And don't get me started on how Apple took the effort of Xerox Parc,
capitalized on that work and then sued Microsoft when *they* tried to use
the same ideas.

The Hague convention thing mentioned upstream seems to be based on the
notion that a 70 year old woman could have a child who in turns lives for 70
years. Seems unlikely to me, but even so, better than the US system, which
seems to be based on a carrot on a stick that is lengthened when necessary.

[CBFalconer]

Joona I Palaste wrote:

.... snip ...
The Disney corporation has been very dutiful in renewing its patents.
At least in the USA, "Mickey Mouse" will still belong to the Disney
corporation in 2400. That the same corporation made heaps of money
reusing children's faerytales whose own patents had expired makes this
quite ironic. Maybe those children's faerytales will soon be patented
by Disney and will require royalties to be expressed in any form?

Patents don't renew. Their purpose is to make techniques public,
in return for a limited period of exclusive use. Unlike
copyright.

--
Chuck F (cb********@yahoo.com) (cb********@worldnet.att.net)
Available for consulting/temporary embedded and systems.
<http://cbfalconer.home.att.net> USE worldnet address!

[Joona I Palaste]

CBFalconer <cb********@yahoo.com> scribbled the following:

Joona I Palaste wrote:
... snip ...

The Disney corporation has been very dutiful in renewing its patents.
At least in the USA, "Mickey Mouse" will still belong to the Disney
corporation in 2400. That the same corporation made heaps of money
reusing children's faerytales whose own patents had expired makes this
quite ironic. Maybe those children's faerytales will soon be patented
by Disney and will require royalties to be expressed in any form?

Patents don't renew. Their purpose is to make techniques public,
in return for a limited period of exclusive use. Unlike
copyright.

Then it appears I have made a mix-up in terms. The Disney corporation
is constantly renewing the *copyright* of "Mickey Mouse". It'll still
be the copyright property of the Disney corporation in 2400. As will
all the classic children's faerytales.

--
/-- Joona Palaste (pa*****@cc.helsinki.fi) ------------- Finland --------\
\-- http://www.helsinki.fi/~palaste --------------------- rules! --------/
"I said 'play as you've never played before', not 'play as IF you've never
played before'!"
- Andy Capp

[P.J. Plauger]

"Joona I Palaste" <pa*****@cc.helsinki.fi> wrote in message
news:c0**********@oravannahka.helsinki.fi...

CBFalconer <cb********@yahoo.com> scribbled the following:

Joona I Palaste wrote:
... snip ...

The Disney corporation has been very dutiful in renewing its patents.
At least in the USA, "Mickey Mouse" will still belong to the Disney
corporation in 2400. That the same corporation made heaps of money
reusing children's faerytales whose own patents had expired makes this
quite ironic. Maybe those children's faerytales will soon be patented
by Disney and will require royalties to be expressed in any form?

Patents don't renew. Their purpose is to make techniques public,
in return for a limited period of exclusive use. Unlike
copyright.

Then it appears I have made a mix-up in terms. The Disney corporation
is constantly renewing the *copyright* of "Mickey Mouse". It'll still
be the copyright property of the Disney corporation in 2400. As will
all the classic children's faerytales.

Not according to current law. The renewal period may be longer than
you (and others) like, but it's still finite.

You're also confusing more than just the terms; you're confusing the
concepts that go with them:

-- A patent is granted for an *idea* that's recognized by people
skilled in the relevant art as being inventive. It covers all uses
of the idea, but for a relatively short term in recent centuries.
By democratizing the "letters patent" by which monarchs once handed
out monopolies, the USA and other nations have demonstrably stimulated
innovation in numerous fields. Patent successes vastly outnumber the
handful of patent abuses that we hear about from time to time.

-- A copyright covers an *expression*, whether it be words, music,
pictures, or performance. It grants to the creator the right to
control how the expression is copied and exploited by others. As
the value of intellectual property has grown, so has the useful
lifetime of the more successful expressions. For individuals, it
was recently extended from the creator's lifetime plus fifty years
to the creator's lifetime plus seventy years.

Some factoids:

-- Disney has no right to copyright old fairy tales. They're in the
public domain and beyond the acquisitive reach of -- even you.

-- Disney may have benefited from the public domain status of older
works, but so too did Shakespeare in many of his plays. And so
did Bernstein et al. by coopting the plot of Romeo and Juliet for
West Side Story. But all of the above borrowers also produced a
*unique expression of lasting value.* That, IMO, gives them some
right to benefit from their value added. (Why don't you start with
the version of Cinderella where the wicked step mother and step
sisters die ignominiously at her hand, once she nabs the prince?
Might make a good Saturday morning cartoon these days. You too can
become as rich as Disney Studios, if you make the right decisions.)

-- One of my son's school friends happens to be the grandson of
Hoagy Carmichael. Grandpa's music is still generating a good
royalty stream, and his grandson is thus still benefiting from
Hoagy's obvious talents. He's not some grasping cartel, just
another kid with an inheritance. Should we review all inheritances
and decide which ones are morally justified? Or does the evil
enter when you pass ownership to a Class C coporation?

FWIW, I've made my living generating intellectual property in the
form of software, textbooks, and science fiction. When I do it
right, I make a good living. When I do it wrong, I try a different
strategy. If there weren't a good fabric of IP laws, and adequate
cultural acceptance of those laws, I'd probably do better shingling
roofs. I have some objections to the application of patent law to
software, and to some of the "thought crime" aspects of the Digital
Millennium Copyright Act, and I'll campaign in my own small way to
have the laws improved. But in general, I have to applaud the
efforts of governments all over the world to give IP a chance to
retain its value.

P.J. Plauger
Dinkumware, Ltd.
http://www.dinkumware.com

[Mark McIntyre]

On 7 Feb 2004 09:20:44 GMT, in comp.lang.c , Joona I Palaste
<pa*****@cc.helsinki.fi> wrote:

Mark McIntyre <ma**********@spamcop.net> scribbled the following:

On Fri, 6 Feb 2004 05:28:40 -0800, in comp.lang.c , "osmium"
<r1********@comcast.net> wrote:

Martin Dickopp writes:
> 70 years after the author's death? Soonest would be ~2045 I guess...

Yes, but only in the unlikely case that this period of time (recently
extended to 90 years in the USA, retroactively covering all works that
were about to enter the public domain, BTW) will not be further extended
until then.

AFAIK US copyright law is designed, and modified as necessary, so Mickey
Mouse will never lose its copyright.

AFAIR copyright is actually governed by the hague convention. While
individual countries can introduce stricter laws, internationally I
can, 70 years after Walt's death, start making cartoons starring a
mouse called mickey.

The Disney corporation has been very dutiful in renewing its patents.

Ah, patents are different I might be infringing a trademark or patent
but I'd not be infringing copyright. Don't confuse the two. You can't
[normally] patent an idea, only a process. A book is not patentable,
nor is a cartoon, but it is copyrightable.
--
Mark McIntyre
CLC FAQ <http://www.eskimo.com/~scs/C-faq/top.html>
CLC readme: <http://www.angelfire.com/ms3/bchambless0/welcome_to_clc.html>
----== Posted via Newsfeed.Com - Unlimited-Uncensored-Secure Usenet News==----
http://www.newsfeed.com The #1 Newsgroup Service in the World! >100,000 Newsgroups
---= 19 East/West-Coast Specialized Servers - Total Privacy via Encryption =---

[pete]

P.J. Plauger wrote:

Patents don't renew. Their purpose is to make techniques public,
in return for a limited period of exclusive use. Unlike
copyright.

Hence, the secret formula of Coca Cola.

Then it appears I have made a mix-up in terms. The Disney corporation
is constantly renewing the *copyright* of "Mickey Mouse". It'll still
be the copyright property of the Disney corporation in 2400. As will
all the classic children's faerytales.

Not according to current law. The renewal period may be longer than
you (and others) like, but it's still finite.

You're also confusing more than just the terms; you're confusing the
concepts that go with them:

-- A patent
-- A copyright

A neglecting a third term, which is "registered trademark"

--
pete

[osmium]

pete writes:

P.J. Plauger wrote:

> Patents don't renew. Their purpose is to make techniques public,
> in return for a limited period of exclusive use. Unlike
> copyright.

Hence, the secret formula of Coca Cola.

And thus the fourth category of intellectual property, the trade secret. No
legal protection, just a way of doing business, as in Colonel Sander's
"secret blend of 11 herbs and spices". Or whatever. To me, considering
modern chemistry, this doesn't seem plausible. A lot of mystique and
dependence on the gullibility of the general public. How hard could it be
to reverse engineer a bottle of Coca Cola?

[Dan Pop]

In <4k********************************@4ax.com> Mark McIntyre <ma**********@spamcop.net> writes:

but I'd not be infringing copyright. Don't confuse the two. You can't
[normally] patent an idea, only a process.
As usual, you got it wrong. Patents are for ideas that can be
economically exploited. I don't have the foggiest idea about what kind of
process you're talking about.
A book is not patentable, nor is a cartoon, but it is copyrightable.

They are not copyrightable, they are *automatically* covered by
the copyright laws. It is ideas that may or may not be patentable,
depending on their degree of originality and usefulness.

Dan
--
Dan Pop
DESY Zeuthen, RZ group
Email: Da*****@ifh.de

[Dan Pop]

In <40**********@mindspring.com> pete <pf*****@mindspring.com> writes:

P.J. Plauger wrote:

> > Patents don't renew. Their purpose is to make techniques public,
> > in return for a limited period of exclusive use. Unlike
> > copyright.
Hence, the secret formula of Coca Cola.

How could it be secret? And whatever patent Coca Cola might have had on
it, it has expired long ago...

> Then it appears I have made a mix-up in terms. The Disney corporation
> is constantly renewing the *copyright* of "Mickey Mouse". It'll still
> be the copyright property of the Disney corporation in 2400. As will
> all the classic children's faerytales.

Not according to current law. The renewal period may be longer than
you (and others) like, but it's still finite.

You're also confusing more than just the terms; you're confusing the
concepts that go with them:

-- A patent
-- A copyright

A neglecting a third term, which is "registered trademark"

It's not in the same ball park with the other two: it has absolutely
nothing to do with intellectual property.

Dan
--
Dan Pop
DESY Zeuthen, RZ group
Email: Da*****@ifh.de

[Christopher Benson-Manica]

Dan Pop <Da*****@cern.ch> spoke thus:

Hence, the secret formula of Coca Cola.

How could it be secret? And whatever patent Coca Cola might have had on
it, it has expired long ago...

I believe it's classified as a "trade secret" or something to that
effect, which is treated differently than a patent or copyright.

--
Christopher Benson-Manica | I *should* know what I'm talking about - if I
ataru(at)cyberspace.org | don't, I need to know. Flames welcome.

[pete]

Dan Pop wrote:

In <40**********@mindspring.com> pete <pf*****@mindspring.com> writes:

P.J. Plauger wrote:

> > Patents don't renew.
> > Their purpose is to make techniques public,
> > in return for a limited period of exclusive use. Unlike
> > copyright.

Hence, the secret formula of Coca Cola.

How could it be secret?
And whatever patent Coca Cola might have had on it,
it has expired long ago...

ITYM "it would have expired long ago"

The formula has never been patented.

--
pete

[Dan Pop]

In <c0**********@chessie.cirr.com> Christopher Benson-Manica <at***@nospam.cyberspace.org> writes:

Dan Pop <Da*****@cern.ch> spoke thus:

Hence, the secret formula of Coca Cola.

How could it be secret? And whatever patent Coca Cola might have had on
it, it has expired long ago...

I believe it's classified as a "trade secret" or something to that
effect, which is treated differently than a patent or copyright.

A trade secret is a secret as long as it can be kept secret. Even if a
chemical analysis of Coca Cola would be illegal, if someone started
producing a beverage with the very same formula, you'd have to prove that
they didn't reinvent it from scratch.

Not to mention that, if a chemical analysis is illegal, you can't
legally prove that the two beverages have the same formula ;-)

The modern patent laws have been invented with the very purpose of
removing the need of trade secrets: you publish the formula of your
beverage and, for a certain period of time, no one else is allowed to use
it. Since it is published, the competitors cannot claim that they have
reinvented it from scratch, even if they actually did!

So, if you have a bright idea, be sure to patent it before someone else
has the same idea and wins the time-to-patent race ;-)

Dan
--
Dan Pop
DESY Zeuthen, RZ group
Email: Da*****@ifh.de

[Alan Balmer]

On 10 Feb 2004 19:32:07 GMT, Da*****@cern.ch (Dan Pop) wrote:

In <c0**********@chessie.cirr.com> Christopher Benson-Manica <at***@nospam.cyberspace.org> writes:

Dan Pop <Da*****@cern.ch> spoke thus:

Hence, the secret formula of Coca Cola.

How could it be secret? And whatever patent Coca Cola might have had on
it, it has expired long ago...

I believe it's classified as a "trade secret" or something to that
effect, which is treated differently than a patent or copyright.

A trade secret is a secret as long as it can be kept secret. Even if a
chemical analysis of Coca Cola would be illegal, if someone started
producing a beverage with the very same formula, you'd have to prove that
they didn't reinvent it from scratch.

A chemical analysis won't tell you how to duplicate it.
Not to mention that, if a chemical analysis is illegal, you can't
legally prove that the two beverages have the same formula ;-)
There are a number of ways of legally proving such a thing. In fact,
proving the same chemical analysis would not prove that products are
identical, either.
The modern patent laws have been invented with the very purpose of
removing the need of trade secrets: you publish the formula of your
beverage and, for a certain period of time, no one else is allowed to use
it. Since it is published, the competitors cannot claim that they have
reinvented it from scratch, even if they actually did!
Patent law encourages inventors to publish their inventions. It does
not require them to do so. Inventors have a choice as to whether they
want to rely on patent protection for a defined length of time, or
trade secret status for an undefined length of time.
So, if you have a bright idea, be sure to patent it before someone else
has the same idea and wins the time-to-patent race ;-)

Dan

--
Al Balmer
Balmer Consulting
re************************@att.net

[Ben Pfaff]

Alan Balmer <al******@att.net> writes:

Inventors have a choice as to whether they want to rely on
patent protection for a defined length of time, or trade secret
status for an undefined length of time.

IANAL but I was unaware that trade secrets caused nasal demons.

[Dan Pop]

In <qt********************************@4ax.com> Alan Balmer <al******@att.net> writes:

On 10 Feb 2004 19:32:07 GMT, Da*****@cern.ch (Dan Pop) wrote:

In <c0**********@chessie.cirr.com> Christopher Benson-Manica <at***@nospam.cyberspace.org> writes:

Dan Pop <Da*****@cern.ch> spoke thus:

>Hence, the secret formula of Coca Cola.

How could it be secret? And whatever patent Coca Cola might have had on
it, it has expired long ago...

I believe it's classified as a "trade secret" or something to that
effect, which is treated differently than a patent or copyright.

A trade secret is a secret as long as it can be kept secret. Even if a
chemical analysis of Coca Cola would be illegal, if someone started
producing a beverage with the very same formula, you'd have to prove that
they didn't reinvent it from scratch.

A chemical analysis won't tell you how to duplicate it.

Please elaborate. Chemical analysis is not the same thing as atomical
analysis, telling which chemical elements are present and in what
proportions.

Not to mention that, if a chemical analysis is illegal, you can't
legally prove that the two beverages have the same formula ;-)

There are a number of ways of legally proving such a thing. In fact,
proving the same chemical analysis would not prove that products are
identical, either.

Where would the differences come from, in the case of a coke-like drink?

The modern patent laws have been invented with the very purpose of
removing the need of trade secrets: you publish the formula of your
beverage and, for a certain period of time, no one else is allowed to use
it. Since it is published, the competitors cannot claim that they have
reinvented it from scratch, even if they actually did!

Patent law encourages inventors to publish their inventions. It does
not require them to do so. Inventors have a choice as to whether they
want to rely on patent protection for a defined length of time, or
trade secret status for an undefined length of time.

That's why I said "removing the *need* of trade secrets" and NOT "removing
the trade secrets". These days, the period of exclusive usage granted by
a patent is, in most cases, orders of magnitude higher than the time it
takes to figure out a trade secret.

Dan
--
Dan Pop
DESY Zeuthen, RZ group
Email: Da*****@ifh.de

[Alan Balmer]

On 11 Feb 2004 13:33:53 GMT, Da*****@cern.ch (Dan Pop) wrote:

In <qt********************************@4ax.com> Alan Balmer <al******@att.net> writes:

On 10 Feb 2004 19:32:07 GMT, Da*****@cern.ch (Dan Pop) wrote:

In <c0**********@chessie.cirr.com> Christopher Benson-Manica <at***@nospam.cyberspace.org> writes:

Dan Pop <Da*****@cern.ch> spoke thus:

>>Hence, the secret formula of Coca Cola.

> How could it be secret? And whatever patent Coca Cola might have had on
> it, it has expired long ago...

I believe it's classified as a "trade secret" or something to that
effect, which is treated differently than a patent or copyright.

A trade secret is a secret as long as it can be kept secret. Even if a
chemical analysis of Coca Cola would be illegal, if someone started
producing a beverage with the very same formula, you'd have to prove that
they didn't reinvent it from scratch.
A chemical analysis won't tell you how to duplicate it.

Please elaborate. Chemical analysis is not the same thing as atomical
analysis, telling which chemical elements are present and in what
proportions.

Actually, what you call atomical analysis is a goodly part of chemical
analysis. However, chemical analysis is a broad term, covering many
other analytical techniques as well. It's also quite limited. In a
complex substance or mixture of substances, the description of the
sample obtained by chemical analysis won't usually correspond to a
formula for duplicating the sample. Sorry if you don't believe that,
but further elaboration would require a course in analytical
chemistry, which I'm not inclined or qualified to give.

Not to mention that, if a chemical analysis is illegal, you can't
legally prove that the two beverages have the same formula ;-)

There are a number of ways of legally proving such a thing. In fact,
proving the same chemical analysis would not prove that products are
identical, either.

Where would the differences come from, in the case of a coke-like drink?

The proposition follows from the discussion above.

Actually, many laboratory analyses of Coca-Cola have been done, and
analysts have proclaimed that the formula must contain this or that
set of ingredients, but none has been able to give a formula for
duplicating the product. There was a publication of what was claimed
to be the original formula (from written notes in the Pemberton
estate, not analysis) but the formula has changed since then.

In general, we have only limited success in synthesizing natural
substances, or even identifying them with any certainty, especially if
they have undergone some type of processing. (In spite of the weekly
miracles performed by the CSI teams on TV.)

The modern patent laws have been invented with the very purpose of
removing the need of trade secrets: you publish the formula of your
beverage and, for a certain period of time, no one else is allowed to use
it. Since it is published, the competitors cannot claim that they have
reinvented it from scratch, even if they actually did!

Patent law encourages inventors to publish their inventions. It does
not require them to do so. Inventors have a choice as to whether they
want to rely on patent protection for a defined length of time, or
trade secret status for an undefined length of time.

That's why I said "removing the *need* of trade secrets" and NOT "removing
the trade secrets". These days, the period of exclusive usage granted by
a patent is, in most cases, orders of magnitude higher than the time it
takes to figure out a trade secret.

But not always. The inventor is gambling. Coca-Cola's formula, and the
variations on it, have been kept secret since 1886. Not that it
actually matters - even if the formula was published, it's too late to
stop that particular juggernaut.

It is part of the mystique, though. Coca-Cola corporate rules are that
two people have possession of the formula, their identities are not
disclosed, and they never travel together. In actuality, I suspect
some of the people on the syrup production floor have a pretty good
notion as to what's in it.

Kentucky Fried Chicken goes even further. Their "secret blend of 11
herbs and spices" is partly made in two different places and combined
at a third location. Again, it doesn't matter much - the brand name is
what sells the chicken.

I'm afraid this is really getting off-topic ;-) I'll stop wasting
people's time with it. Protection of inventions has sort of a nebulous
connection to programming, but fried chicken is way too far off base.
--
Al Balmer
Balmer Consulting
re************************@att.net

[Dan Pop]

In <gs********************************@4ax.com> Alan Balmer <al******@att.net> writes:

On 11 Feb 2004 13:33:53 GMT, Da*****@cern.ch (Dan Pop) wrote:

In <qt********************************@4ax.com> Alan Balmer <al******@att.net> writes:

On 10 Feb 2004 19:32:07 GMT, Da*****@cern.ch (Dan Pop) wrote:

In <c0**********@chessie.cirr.com> Christopher Benson-Manica <at***@nospam.cyberspace.org> writes:

>Dan Pop <Da*****@cern.ch> spoke thus:
>
>>>Hence, the secret formula of Coca Cola.
>
>> How could it be secret? And whatever patent Coca Cola might have had on
>> it, it has expired long ago...
>
>I believe it's classified as a "trade secret" or something to that
>effect, which is treated differently than a patent or copyright.

A trade secret is a secret as long as it can be kept secret. Even if a
chemical analysis of Coca Cola would be illegal, if someone started
producing a beverage with the very same formula, you'd have to prove that
they didn't reinvent it from scratch.

A chemical analysis won't tell you how to duplicate it.
Please elaborate. Chemical analysis is not the same thing as atomical
analysis, telling which chemical elements are present and in what
proportions.

Actually, what you call atomical analysis is a goodly part of chemical
analysis.

It's a purely physical analysis.
However, chemical analysis is a broad term, covering many
other analytical techniques as well. It's also quite limited. In a
complex substance or mixture of substances, the description of the
sample obtained by chemical analysis won't usually correspond to a
formula for duplicating the sample.
If you know the exact composition of the sample, and this is possible,
figuring out a formula for duplicating the sample shouldn't be too
difficult. Especially when you don't need an exact duplication, merely
something that most people cannot organoleptically discern from the
original.
In general, we have only limited success in synthesizing natural
substances,
Coke hardly qualifies as a natural substance.
It is part of the mystique, though. Coca-Cola corporate rules are that
two people have possession of the formula, their identities are not
disclosed, and they never travel together.
Someone must actually "implement" the formula, on an industrial scale, in
each and every Coca-Cola factory around the world.
In actuality, I suspect
some of the people on the syrup production floor have a pretty good
notion as to what's in it.
The big secret is that there is no unique Coca-Cola formula. The thing
tastes differently in different parts of the world and the caffeine
contents is also locale-specific.
I'm afraid this is really getting off-topic ;-)

Otherwise, the [OT] tag of the subthread wouldn't be justified ;-)

Dan
--
Dan Pop
DESY Zeuthen, RZ group
Email: Da*****@ifh.de

[Keith Thompson]

Da*****@cern.ch (Dan Pop) writes:
[...]

If you know the exact composition of the sample, and this is possible,
figuring out a formula for duplicating the sample shouldn't be too
difficult.

I'm skeptical of this claim. I'm not enough of a chemist to be able
to justify my skepticism. Are you?

--
Keith Thompson (The_Other_Keith) ks***@mib.org <http://www.ghoti.net/~kst>
San Diego Supercomputer Center <*> <http://www.sdsc.edu/~kst>
Schroedinger does Shakespeare: "To be *and* not to be"

[Michael Wojcik]

In article <c0*************@ID-179017.news.uni-berlin.de>, "osmium" <r1********@comcast.net> writes:

And thus the fourth category of intellectual property, the trade secret. No
legal protection, just a way of doing business, as in Colonel Sander's
"secret blend of 11 herbs and spices". Or whatever. To me, considering
modern chemistry, this doesn't seem plausible. A lot of mystique and
dependence on the gullibility of the general public. How hard could it be
to reverse engineer a bottle of Coca Cola?

Not hard, and formulations that are so close to the various Coca Colas
(there's more than one) as makes no difference are well-known. Coca
Cola's "secret formula" is a marketing gimick, not a piece of key IP.

William Poundstone has written an entertaining series of books titled
_Big Secrets_, _Bigger Secrets_, and so forth which expose numerous
trade secrets that aren't particularly secret. The KFC seasoning blend
is also among them. (Hint: There aren't 11 components, at least not in
significant amounts.) Of course it is possible that Poundstone's
research and reverse engineering are wrong in some cases, but I suspect
he's generally right.

These books are of course under copyright, which brings us neatly back
around.

--
Michael Wojcik mi************@microfocus.com

The way things were, were the way things were, and they stayed that way
because they had always been that way. -- Jon Osborne

[Arthur J. O'Dwyer]

On Wed, 11 Feb 2004, Keith Thompson wrote:

Da*****@cern.ch (Dan Pop) writes:
[...]

If you know the exact composition of the sample, and this is possible,
figuring out a formula for duplicating the sample shouldn't be too
difficult.

I'm skeptical of this claim. I'm not enough of a chemist to be able
to justify my skepticism. Are you?

Given a chemical formula for X, you can produce X from scratch.
Of course, you may require lots of expensive equipment, possibly even
including an atom-smasher to get the rarer elements, ;-) and you may
not be clever enough to find a *convenient* *commercially-feasible*
method of mass production of X; but you can certainly duplicate X
given enough time and money! It's just a matter of sticking atoms
together!
Remember, the Standard makes no claims about efficiency...

-Arthur

[Alan Balmer]

On Wed, 11 Feb 2004 21:48:21 -0500 (EST), "Arthur J. O'Dwyer"
<aj*@nospam.andrew.cmu.edu> wrote:

On Wed, 11 Feb 2004, Keith Thompson wrote:

Da*****@cern.ch (Dan Pop) writes:
[...]

> If you know the exact composition of the sample, and this is possible,
> figuring out a formula for duplicating the sample shouldn't be too
> difficult.
I'm skeptical of this claim. I'm not enough of a chemist to be able
to justify my skepticism. Are you?

Given a chemical formula for X, you can produce X from scratch.
Of course, you may require lots of expensive equipment, possibly even
including an atom-smasher to get the rarer elements, ;-) and you may
not be clever enough to find a *convenient* *commercially-feasible*
method of mass production of X; but you can certainly duplicate X
given enough time and money! It's just a matter of sticking atoms
together!

Too much Startrek <G>. The universal synthesizer won't be invented for
a while yet. That's where the time comes in - a century or so <g>.
Remember, the Standard makes no claims about efficiency...

-Arthur

--
Al Balmer
Balmer Consulting
re************************@att.net

[David Resnick]

"Arthur J. O'Dwyer" <aj*@nospam.andrew.cmu.edu> wrote in message news:<Pi***********************************@unix40 .andrew.cmu.edu>...

On Wed, 11 Feb 2004, Keith Thompson wrote:

Da*****@cern.ch (Dan Pop) writes:
[...]

If you know the exact composition of the sample, and this is possible,
figuring out a formula for duplicating the sample shouldn't be too
difficult.

I'm skeptical of this claim. I'm not enough of a chemist to be able
to justify my skepticism. Are you?

Given a chemical formula for X, you can produce X from scratch.
Of course, you may require lots of expensive equipment, possibly even
including an atom-smasher to get the rarer elements, ;-) and you may
not be clever enough to find a *convenient* *commercially-feasible*
method of mass production of X; but you can certainly duplicate X
given enough time and money! It's just a matter of sticking atoms
together!
Remember, the Standard makes no claims about efficiency...

-Arthur

This is nonsense. The "chemical formula" of an item does not describe
it
necessary. In terms of chemical composition, a diamond = a buckyball
= graphite, all are pure Carbon. Furthermore, even exact knowledge of
the chemical composition AND structure of a substance does not mean
that you can construct it. The PROCESS by which something is made can
not necessarily be deduced from its chemical composition, or even its
final form. As a concrete example of this in the biotech industry,
the exact composition AND structures of many large proteins are know.
However, producing those proteins via chemistry may be extraordinarly
difficult as the PROCESS by which the proteins are induced to fold
into their "correct" final form is, well, complex. Information about
intermediate steps is lost (consider trying to convert assembly code
back to the original C, to mention something on topic here, yeah, I
know this is marked OT, but...).

Mind you, I expect something relatively simple like Coke could be
reverse engineered. But there would be significant trial and error
involved to get a process for mixing the ingredients that resulted in
the final product being identical in not just "chemical composition"
but actual perceived taste...

-David

[pete]

David Resnick wrote:

Mind you, I expect something relatively simple like Coke could be
reverse engineered. But there would be significant trial and error
involved to get a process for mixing the ingredients that resulted in
the final product being identical in not just "chemical composition"
but actual perceived taste...

Coke has both natural and artificial ingedients.

The Thing which prevents Coke from being duplicated exactly,
is the Law Of Diminishing Returns.
If you're trying to duplicate Coke,
the chances are that what you really want,
is a cheap cola that tastes as good or better
and once you've got either of those, you're done.

http://www.snopes.com/cokelore/formula.asp

--
pete