A AP HTL introduction of hotel management services to owners and partners doc AP HTL joint operating licence agreement : hotel doc AP HTL joint venture : hotel : letter of intent doc AP HTL joint venture agreement : hotel doc AP HTL licence marketing service agreement : hotel doc AP HTL licence marketing service agreement : off-shore doc AP HTL licence of hotel goods doc AP HTL licensor's support letter to ownco finance doc AP HTL management agreement : hotel : letter of intent doc AP HTL management and licence agreement : letter of intent doc AP HTL operating and management agreement : australian full version doc AP HTL operating and management agreement : existing hotel doc AP HTL operating and management agreement : glossary of terms doc AP HTL operating and management agreement : in-country doc AP HTL operating and management agreement : legal issues highlight doc AP HTL operating and management agreement : new built hotel doc AP HTL operating management aw Code Document Language Type AP ARB guide to effective international arbitration AP COM architectural services contract doc AP COM business acquisition legal issues checklist : ontario doc AP COM choice of law and jurisdiction clause doc AP COM coach management agreement doc AP COM confidentiality agreement : acquisition of property doc AP COM contract for architectural & engineering services doc AP COM due diligence material & information and enquiries AP COM formation of joint venture : binding memorandum of understanding doc AP COM general service agreement : ag HK COM confidentialbusiness plan doc HK COM education institute constitution doc HK COM education voucher doc HK COM employment agreement : director doc HK COM entertainment club contract : disco doc HK COM entertainment contract HK COM environmental protection & safety in factory : note doc HK COM escrow agent service agreement doc HK COM estate agent service agreement : for buyer doc HK COM estate agent service agreement : for buyer c doc HK COM estate agent service agreement : for seller doc HK COM estate agent service agreement : for seller c doc HK COM exhibition hall doc HK COM exhibition service agreement doc HK COM facility letter doc HK COM finance company : letter of intent doc HK COM finance company formation : letter of intent doc HK COM fixed charge on goods doc HK COM forestry development : loan agreement doc HK COM formation of business : incorporated doc HK COM fraudulent preference : note doc HK COM freight/transport agreement doc HK COM functional constituency : petition : HKCS doc HK COM global asset protection doc HK COM grant of guarantee against security : note doc HK COM guarantee & indemnity : corporate doc HK COM guarantee : comfort letter offer non-binding guarantee doc HK COM guarantee : continuing doc HK COM guarantee : corporate guarantor doc HK COM guarantee : debt doc HK COM guarantee : individual doc HK COM guarantee : individual guarantor doc HK COM guarantee : note on validity doc HK COM guarantee : property doc HK COM guarantee : sale of goods doc HK COM guarantee letter : personal doc HK COM guarantee without expiry dafund doc HK COM incorporated owners' association : allotment of shares doc HK COM incorporated owners' ass H HK COM representative office agreement doc HK COM residential development agreement doc HK COM restrictive covenants in sale of business doc HK COM retail agreement doc HK COM sale & purchase of entire share capital doc HK COM sale & purchase of whole issued share capital doc HK COM sale and purchase agreement : assets doc HK COM sale and purchase agreement of business through asset doc HK COM sale of business : asset & goodwill doc HK COM sale of business : asset : guarantee performance doc HK COM sale of business : continuous post-sale service doc HK COM sale of business : due diligence checklist to vendor : computer maintenance doc HK COM sale of business : firm to company doc HK COM sale of business : letter to request party for consent to assign contract doc HK COM sale of business : notice of employment termination doc HK COM sale of business : private company doc HK COM sale of business : procedure table doc HK COM sale of business : s.5 notice doc HK COM sale of business : s.7 letter to employee doc HK COM sale of business : simple form doc HK COM sale of business : simple form agreement doc HK COM sale of business : standard form doc HK COM sale of company : completion schedule doc HK COM sale of company : information to employees doc HK COM sale of company : warranties doc HK COM sale of co HKfirm : proposal doc HK CPU database / portal project proposal headings doc HK CPU decision and information cycle for law intranet ppt HK CPU e-mail user guide doc HK CPU e-marketing online course material ppt HK CPU gpss / pc brief instruction on use doc HK CPU illusions of business continuity planning ppt HK CPU information technology professional human resources survey questionnaire doc HK CPU interactive marketing service on the internet : proposal doc HK CPU internet domain name registration rules doc HK CPU introduction to computers ppt HK CPU jurimetrics & legal expert system doc HK CPU law office automation ppt HK CPU law office automation service listing & benefit doc HK CPU law school : assignment doc HK CPU law school : examination question doc HK CPU law school : index to articles doc HK CPU law school : recommended readings etc doc HK CPU law school : schedule of answers doc HK CPU law school : syllabus doc HK CPU law school : tutorial doc HK CPU law society evaluation doc HK CPU lawyers practice : update internet based search tools ppt HK CPU lecture invitation : personal & law society doc HK CPU lecture notes : computer for executive doc HK CPU legal office automation solution : lotus notes doc HK CPU legal reasoning formalisms doc HK CPU lotus notes domino suite by lotus taiwan doc HK CPU make lawyers your cusHK COM confidentialbusiness plan doc HK COM education institute constitution doc HK COM education voucher doc HK COM employment agreement : director doc HK COM entertainment club contract : disco doc HK COM entertainment contract HK COM environmental protection & safety in factory : note doc HK COM escrow agent service agreement doc HK COM estate agent service agreement : for buyer doc HK COM estate agent service agreement : for buyer c doc HK COM estate agent service agreement : for seller doc HK COM estate agent service agreement : for seller c doc HK COM exhibition hall doc HK COM exhibition service agreement doc HK COM facility letter doc HK COM finance company : letter of intent doc HK COM finance company formation : letter of intent doc HK COM fixed charge on goods doc HK COM forestry development :K CPU multimate aide memoir doc HK CPU multunder HK organisation : shielding of potential claims doc HK CPY record retention : admissibility as evidence doc HK CPY records retention & disposition schedule HK CPY rectification of filed documents : coHK CRI dock brief scalon chinese leadership : guanxi and structuration doc HK DBA japan : brief history doc HK DBA japan : business and management practices doc HK DBA japan : changes doc HK DBA japan : common characteristics with china doc HK DBA japan : general country profile and business doc HK DBA japan : karoshi : salaryman drop dead doc HK DBA japan : religion and philosophy doc HK DBA japan : values and assumptions doc HK DBA school of names : philosophy doc HK EMP confidentiality notes : licensee's undertaking doc HK EMP employee : indemnity to employer for training fee doc HK EMP employee secondment agreement doc HK EMP employee's shares in company doc HK EMP employees' compensation : 1993 amendments doc HK EMP employees' compensation : medical appliance doc HK EMP employees' compensation : objection to assessment doc HK EMP employees' compensation : respondent's answer doc HK EMP employment : dentist doc HK EMP employment : designer : index linkedHK COM confidentialbusiness plan doc HK COM education institute constitution doc HK COM education voucher doc HK COM employment agreement : director doc HK COM entertainment club contract : disco doc HK COM entertainment contract HK COM environmental protection & safety in factory : note doc HK COM escrow agent service agreement doc HK COM estate agent service agreement : for buyer doc HK COM estate agent service agreement : for buyer c doc HK COM estate agent service agreement : for seller doc HK COM estate agent service agreement : for seller c doc HK COM exhibition hall doc HK COM exhibition service agreement doc HK COM facility letter doc HK COM finance company : letter of intent doc HK COM finance company formation : letter of intent doc HK COM fixed charge on goods doc HK COM forestry develo: it companies doc HK EMP ce proposal 1997 doc HK CPY s.157 avoidance resolution doc HK CPY sale of company doc HK CPY sale of company : liberian company doc HK CPY sale of company : real property doc HK CPY sale of company : warranties by vendor doc HK CPY sale of real property by share transfer doc HK CPY sale of shares doc HK CPY sale of shares : simple form doc HK CPY sale of shares : warranties & representations doc HK CPY scheme of arrangement : capital reduction : opinion doc HK CPY scheme of arrangement : directors' duty : advice doc HK CPY scheme of arrangement : disclosable facts doc HK CPY scheme of arrangement : issues and note doc HK CPY scheme of rearrangement : change in circumstances doc HK CPY service / employment agreement : nominee director doc HK CPY share : forfeiture doc HK CPY share capital increase doc HK CPY share purchase : letter of intent doc HK CPY share purchase agreement : binding letter of intent doc HK CPY share purchase agreement : long form doc I would like to associate .doc files in my email with the Star Office text editor. I am using Netscape messenger for mail on Solaris 7. I know how to setup the associations, I am just unsure if there is an executable for the Star Office text editor. I pointed it to the soffice script and it successfully launched Star Office, but did not bring in the document into the text editor. Thanks ahead of time for any info! Would anyone know the property for out of office text? EDKMDB.H has PR_OOF_STATE, which tells if the person is out of the office, but I can't find the property for the accompanying text. TIA, DAVE Hallo zusammen, weiss jemand, ob es die Möglichkeit gibt aus einem Star Office Text ein PDF zu erstellen? V: Novel-Perfect-Office (Text, Kalkulation, Präsentation) CD-VersionPreis: VB 250,- DMU.Weber U.Weber@stud-mailer.uni-marburg.de Does MS Office 2000 have built-in speech to text support for agents? Clearly, it's easy to drop a file like peedy.acs into my actors folder. Is there an easy why to get it to read text balloons. Regard twolfe@thegrid.net I sent my last post without adding question #2. Sorry. My site is very text intensive. I write articles in Microsoft Word, so I'm wondering what is the best way to save them so that dreamweaver understands its formatting. Saved as a normal .txt file, Dreamweaver's CSS style that I created does not understand the paragraph breaks, so that I have to manually go in and hit RETURN so that my first line is indented. I wouldn't save the file as HTML, would I? I want to do the background and buttons, etc. in Dreamweaver. Any help would be greatly appreciated! R. Dale McCarverI have to display a list of user's who have their Out of office flag set. How do i get a list of users from exchange ??? I tried that using CDO but whenever i access a user's mailbox (with all the permission as Admin/Service Admin) to check the OutofOffice flag, it logs a sucess audit entry (Event Id: 1016, this is as per design n behaviour) in the event viewer and there is no way i can supress that. Is there any other way i can get the Out of office message and flag ? I am using Exchange Server 5.5. Thanks my delphi application send any text or any grap. to ms.word. Its. OK. but i need cursor position Row() and Col() ? Thanks thanks all Dervis..... I have two kinds of Word documents on my Mac (233Mhz PowerBook G3 from 1999, running Office 98 on OS 9.0.4): there are old papers I wrote in college, written in an older version of Word (Office sees them as "Microsoft Word 1.x-5.x document"), and new documents, created in Office 98 ("Microsoft Word 97-98 document"). The Office 98 documents open fine; and the 1.x-5.x documents *used* to open fine; I would open them; they'd get converted; then I'd save them in 98 format (or, more often, not bother resaving them - mistake). Suddenly, just recently, Word refuses to open (automatically convert) the old documents - it says "There is not enough memory to load the Microsoft Office 98 Assistant shared library." Nothing's changed on my computer in ages; I haven't installed (or uninstalled) anything. It just refuses to open the docs created in the older version of Word -- I have to click through that dialogue box about a dozen times, then force-quit Word (since it's frozen with an empty document onscreen). The "Word 4.x-5.x for the Macintosh" text converter is still in the Office "Text Converters" folder; I've tried moving it (and the other converters) to the main Extensions folder and back; I've tried turning off most the extensions to see if there's an extensions conflict; I've tried allotting more memory to Word. Nothing works. Perhaps most disturbingly, I started up from the System 9 disc and tried to do a clean install -- and it wouldn't let me. It said something was wrong with the disc (which I've used to do clean installs and whatnot many times in the past). I'm hoping not to lose all those old papers. Does anyone have any insight?? Thanks so much, EC Greetings, %PMDF-I-VERSION, PMDF version is PMDF V5.2-33 COMPAQ AlphaServer DS10 466 MHz running OpenVMS Alpha V7.2-1 PMDF_SHARE_LIBRARY version V5.2-33; linked 17:51:30, Jun 6 2000 I am following up a report of file names being lost on text attachments going into Office Server via PMDF-MR (TS mode) on an Alpha. The option A1_COMPAT_MODE=3 is set, which causes PMDF-MR to use and produce the "Message Wrappers" that allow file names to be retained. This works fine for most attachments (although the filenames on outbound messages have full paths like C:\MYDIR\SAMPLE.DOC, but that's another story). Incoming attachments such as Word, XLS etc retain the original name from the Content-Disposition line, but text attachments arrive as untitled attachments (the names are certainly there when the message is in the PMDF queue directory). I checked this with a couple of other sites, and they report the same thing. I am not sure if this is a misconfiguration, or is Office Server treating text attachments as something special. I also see that where the main message body is empty, Office Server 'absorbs' the first attachment into the main text, so it is possible that it does treat text differently. Has anyone else seen this effect ? Regards Tom Wade This applies to Office XP Office XP Clipboard collector not retaining text formatting from outside sources. To duplicate this undesirable (and rather annoying) behavior: Open WordPad and make two sentences with two different text formats. For example, one with the font color red, and one with the formatting bold. With the clipboard collector on, copy the first sentence, and then copy the second sentence. Now return to Word and Paste All from the Office Clipboard. Notice that the formatting was not held by the Office Clipboard collector, but both sentences were pasted in plain text. Now, turn the Office Clipboard collector off and copy one of the sentences from WordPad then paste it in Word. The formatting, as expected, has been retained.-- to reply, remove the .nope girlamerica@hotmail.nope.com Hi Francoise, Good question :) I think you may need to go with a macro solution for this to extract the text from the text boxes and paste it back into Word unless all of the text boxes are linked. In that case you could select the first one, use Ctrl+A (select all) and then copy and paste the text to a new document. You may want to check with the folks in news://msnews.microsoft.com/microsoft.public.word.vba.general for a macro approach. The sequence of the text boxes would assume a consistent top to bottom type of layout. (Nice artwork on your site BTW I see you list 1000 Oaks exhibit in your resume. FYI - work from kids from my cousin's art school :) http://www.yng-at-art.com/westlake_village_student_portfolio.htm) ======== <<"Francoise Frigola" wrote in message news:8jeaqt8as1ti2gvcei2pbl6dtuqobcst72@4ax.com... I have a series of .rtf documents that are made of bunches of text boxes. These boxes are a pain to edit! How can I "merge" the text boxes into a plain and simple .doc file using Office 2000? Thanks Fine Arts: Sculptures and Original Inkjet Prints http://www.pe.net/~franou/ >> -- Hope that helps you, Bob Buckland ?:-) MS Office Products MVP *Courtesy is not expensive and can pay big dividends*JTR (jtr@usa1.com) wrote: : What case is this? Does someone have a good summary of some of the key : type copyright cases? Here are the US Copyright Office's policy decisions of 1988 and 1992 on the non-copyrightability of computer typefaces, which also set forth legal precedents up to those dates (documents in plain TeX format). These key documents are omitted (censored?) from the comp.fonts FAQ. They raise bilious gurglings in the guts of type crafters. Richard J. Kinch, Ph.D. kinch@holonet.net 6994 Pebble Beach Court Publisher, TrueTeX (R) brand Lake Worth FL 33467 typesetting software. Tel (561) 966-8400 See http://styx.ios.com/~kinch FAX (561) 966-0962 ============================================================================== \raggedright \raggedbottom \emergencystretch=0.5in \parindent=0pt \centerline{\bf Policy Decision on Copyrightability of Digitized Typefaces} \centerline{\bf Copyright Office, Library of Congress.} \centerline{Federal Register Vol.~53, Pg.~38110} \centerline{Thursday, September 29, 1988} \parskip=6pt \bigskip \centerline{\bf SUMMARY} The purpose of this notice is to inform the public that the Copyright Office has decided that digitized representations of typeface designs are not registrable under the Copyright Act because they do not constitute original works of authorship. The digitized representations of typefaces are neither original computer programs (as defined in 17 U.S.C. 101), nor original databases, nor any other original work of authorship. Registration will be made for original computer programs written to control the generic digitization process, but registration will not be made for the data that merely represents an electronic depiction of a particular typeface or individual letterforms. If this master computer program includes data that fixes or depicts a particular typeface, typefont, or letterform, the registration application must disclaim copyright in that uncopyrightable data. \bigskip {\bf 1. Background} Under section 410(a) of the Copyright Act of 1976, title 17 of the United States Code, the Register of Copyrights determines whether the material submitted for registration constitutes copyrightable subject matter and that other legal and formal requirements have been met'' before issuing a certificate of registration. To be registrable and copyrightable, a work must constitute an original work of authorship.'' 17~U.S.C.\ 102. Useful articles are not protected except to the extent the articles contain artistic features capable of existing separately and independently of the overall utilitarian shape. Variations of typographic ornamentation [or] mere lettering'' are not copyrightable. 37~CFR~202.1(a). In {\it Eltra Corp.~v.\ Ringer}, 579~F.2d\ 294 (4th Cir.~1978), the Fourth Circuit upheld the Office's refusal to register a claim to copyright in typeface design under its then regulation, 37~CFR\ 202.10(c)(1978) [now codified in the Copyright Act in the definition of pictorial, graphic, or sculptural works'']. The Eltra court reasoned that it is patent that typeface is an industrial design in which the design cannot exist independently and separately as a work of art.'' 579~F.2d at 298. The decision in {\it Eltra Corp.~v.\ Ringer\/} clearly comports with the intention of the Congress. Whether typeface designs should be protected by copyright was considered and specifically rejected by Congress in passing the Copyright Act of 1976. The 1976 House Report states: {\parindent=0.5in\narrower\noindent A typeface'' can be defined as a set of letters, numbers, or other symbolic characters, whose forms are related by repeating design elements consistently applied in a notational system and are intended to be embodied in articles whose intrinsic utilitarian function is for use in composing text or other cognizable combinations of characters. The Committee does not regard the design of typeface, as thus defined, to be a copyrightable pictorial, graphic, or sculptural work'' within the meaning of this bill and the application of the dividing line in section 101. [H.R.\ Rep.\ No.\ 1476, 94th Cong., 2d Sess.~55 (1976)]. \par} In rejecting copyright protection for typeface designs, the Congress in addition deferred a decision on a more limited form of protection under proposed ornamental design legislation. Title II of the 1976 copyright revision bill as passed by the Senate could have protected typeface designs, but the House of Representatives had doubts about even this limited form of protection. Consequently, only copyright revision passed. H.R.\ Rep.\ No.~1476 at 50 and 55. Design legislation has yet to be enacted, and Congress has chosen not to include typeface designs within the Copyright Act's definition of pictorial, graphic or sculptural works. The Copyright Office has received applications to register claims to copyright in material variously termed data,'' database,'' computer program,'' compilation of data,'' and typefont data set,'' which relate to, or represent, digitized versions of typeface designs. A Notice of Inquiry was published in October 1986 requesting public comment regarding the registrability of this material. ((51~FR 36410 (Oct.~10, 1986)). The Notice raised primarily four questions about the nature and extent of any copyrightable authorship in digitized typography, apart from the typeface design itself: whether there exist a variety of ways to express instructions for creating the same typeface design; are there any copyrightable elements, apart from the unprotectible typeface design, which comprise the original work of authorship;'' does the information,'' instructions,'' or data'' comprise a computer program, compilation or database; and, finally, if registration is permitted, what would be the appropriate form of deposit? The comment period was extended twice (52~FR 3146 and 52~FR 23476) to allow full public comment. A total of 19 initial and reply comments were received, including a videotape demonstration of the digitization process and other exhibits. \bigskip {\bf 2. Technology and the Digitizing Process} In describing the process of the digitization of typefont characters, the Office will employ technical terms, for which we adopt the following definitions. Digital typefont'' is a bitmapped digital representation of an actual analog typeface design, stored in binary form on magnetic or optical media, or Read-Only-Memory (ROM) mounted on a circuit board. Sometimes, the ROM on the circuit board is assembled into a plastic cartridge which is inserted into a laser printer or other microprocessor-driven device. When decoded and interpreted, by the bitmapping code'' software, the digital representation of the design will reproduce the appropriate character. Bitmapping'' refers to the technology that allows control of individual pixels on a display screen to produce graphic elements of superior resolution, permitting accurate reproduction of arcs, circles, sine waves, or other curved images. A bitmapped character,'' whether used on a computer screen or on a dot-matrix or laser printer, is a dotted representation of an analog letter or character image where dots are so close together that when reduced to actual printed or displayed size, they form an image or character without the need to connect the dots. To create a digitized typeface from an existing analog typeface, analog visual representations of characters are scanned and represented as a collection of discrete picture elements, called pixels. Pixels can be efficiently encoded in digital form on any convenient storage medium. The medium can be magnetic (e.g. tape, disk or diskette), electronic (e.g., ROM cartridge), or optical (e.g., video-disk). The encoded digitized representation is then organized as bits of information, manipulated and changed (usually reduced to minimize storage requirements) and placed in a format usable with a specific program and compatible digital typesetter. Typically, a specialized computer circuit in the printing device reads the information from the storage media or cartridge and causes a laser beam to draw a representation of a particular typefont character on a cylindrical surface in direct response to the digital data and instructions in the media or cartridge. This image is then transferred by a process, similar to printing, to paper from which the information is read or the printer may drive a set of wires against an inked ribbon that places dots on the paper. The visual representation appears once again. There are basically three techniques applied to represent characters digitally: Bitmapping, outlining and stroke definition. A digitized typeface could be prepared by bitmapping alone, but it is more common to use a combination of the three techniques to improve the quality of the typeface. Bitmapping is a dot-by-dot representation of each character. A different bitmap is required for each size and style of a character, and there are several ways to create a bitmap. The most popular ways are by scanning black and white images, scan converting a digital outline representation (soft scanning) using software written for this purpose, building up an image bit-by-bit using an interactive editor on a computer, and through a combination of scanning and editing. In the outline method, lines or curves define the boundaries of typeface characters. The outlines can consist of straight line segments only or straight line segments along with abstract representations of the curves. The digital information, comprised of instructions and data, is fixed by a computer operator who digitally locates only the outlines of characters. In order to form a completed letter on a screen display or on paper when printed out, an outline font program instructs a computer or printer logic to fill in the outline of the character. If a laser printer is used, the beam sweeps from side to side or up and down within the boundaries of the letter, filling in the bounded area with dots that will show up as solids on the paper or screen. In the stroked definition method, characters are represented like the strokes'' of a pen or brush following the path of a straight or curved line. The computer operator must define the characteristics of the pen'' or brush,'' such as what occurs at corners and stroke endings. Ultimately, these descriptions must be converted into bitmaps. Finally, digitization techniques may be used to create a new typeface---one that has no prior analog counterpart. \bigskip {\bf 3. Summary of Comments} The Copyright Office received 19 initial and reply comments in response to its Notice. Two comments maintain that the digitized typefaces are not copyrightable. The first argues that the only difference between the digitized version and the unprotectible typeface itself is that the former is read'' by a machine to create the visually perceptible typeface. The look-up'' table in a bitmap, this comment continues, is a one-on-one correlation which involves no creativity. The algorithms used in the outline method likewise involve {\it de minimis} judgment and creativity. Finally, the commentator cautions that protection of digitized versions of typeface may inhibit the standardization of character matrixes that facilitate the compatibility of software for personal computers. The second comment opposing registration declares that bitmaps are static data, fixed representations of images at a given resolution. This comment compares the static dot pattern representation of each letter to the patterns cast and carved onto metal in medieval times. In support of registration, eleven comments espouse variations of the basic proposition that the data and instructions which comprise the digital typefont are computer programs, copyrightable databases or some protectible hybrid of the two. The themes which run through their various comments are that the data and instructions are a work'' apart from the typeface itself, the work'' is used directly or indirectly in a computer to bring about a certain result'' and qualifies as a computer program within the meaning of section 101 of title 17, and/or the ultimate shape of the typefont character does not predetermine its digital representation and elements of human selection and arrangement are required, constituting a protectible database. One comment states that the work'' is a computer program which operates on a data stream and is configured in a particular format. Another amplifies this position, explaining that execution of the program calls up stored data in the form of digitized typeface instructions and converts the instructions into printed typeface characters. Two comments take the position that the rule of doubt'' should be used. The first argues that digitized databases are both databases and programs, and, since neither can be read by the Office, ultimately the courts should decide on their copyrightability. This comment advocates that, in any event, the work'' is protectible as a program, compilation or separately as a literary work. Another comment claims protection for the edited, compiled set of instructions and data as a literary work. The second comment espousing rule of doubt would limit the registration to the typeface database. Several comments state that not all typeface programs and databases are protectible. Purely mechanical translations from analog to digitized typefaces, they acknowledge, are not copyrightible. For example, they state that protection should not be extended where an analog typefont is merely scanned into digital form with no editing or selection of font characteristics, or where there is mere duplication of preexisting digital typefont without further editing. One comment recommends considering typefont a special class of program. Another one opines that the protectible work is a digital photograph. Copyrightable expression attaches, another comment contends, in that programming choices exist apart from the functional data and algorithms utilized in the program expressing the typeface design. One comment recommends protecting the typefont as a software/database hybrid. The work'' is the integration of all elements of the software and database. The software should be protected separately also, this comment continues, because it is a different work then the typeface, and programs are protectible, it is argued, even if they ultimately produce an uncopyrightable end product. Another comment describes the choices inherent in font digitization, and argues that the combination of data and instructions statisfies the Copyright Act's definition of the term computer program.'' The digital image, it maintains, can be represented in different computer languages using different techniques. This comment also states that no distinction is drawn at the machine language level between data and instructions. In general purpose programming languages, the surface separation between data and algorithms is for the ease of human programmers. Programs are like sentences: Algorithms (verbs) act upon data (nouns). In some languages, data and algorithms are tightly bound in a single program. In others, the data and algorithms are initially stored separarely, though they must be conjoined in order for the computer to successfully execute the instructions for rendering digital type. This comment further argues that the conversion from analog to digital is not an automatic computer process-different printers read different computer languages and this must be factored into the translation; the translation is a derivative work. Another comment states that programs to generate typeface design can be written in various languages and for many different machines with distinct programs. Typeface programs, it is argued, are original and creative and -- should be protected. \bigskip {\bf 4. Policy Decision and Rationale} The proponents of copyright registration for data or other elements related to digitized typefaces seek, as they must, to present arguments for protection of data, or program instructions, or hybrid works consisting of both data and instructions that are entitled to copyright apart from the uncopyrightable typeface designs and typefonts. Both the Congress and the Fourth Circuit Court of Appeals in {\it Eltra Corp.~v.\ Ringer\/} decided that analog typeface designs are not now copyright subject matter. The Copyright Office concludes that typefaces created by a computerized-digital process are also uncopyrightable. Like analog typefaces, digitally created typefaces exhibit no creative authorship apart from the utilitarian shapes that are formed to compose letters or other font characters. Congress has not only rejected copyright protection for typeface designs. It has refused to enact a more limited form of protection, the proposed design protection law,'' which might be a vehicle for typeface design protection.\footnote{$^1$}{The Senate design bill, S. 791, would specifically protect typeface designs. The House bills (H.R. 379; H.R. 1179; H.R. 1603) omit specific reference to typeface, but the definitions of the bills probably include typeface protection.} In making this decision on registration for digitized versions of typefaces, the Copyright Office has been conscious of the need for caution to avoid a decision that would undermine the clear congressional and judicial findings that typeface designs are not copyright subject matter. Moreover, a typefont is not copyrightable since it constitutes the useful article itself. The issue then is whether the process of computer assisted digitization of uncopyrightable typeface designs and typefonts creates compilations of data or computer program instructions that are copyrightable and separate from the uncopyrightable elements. We conclude that computer programs used to control the general digitization process and that otherwise meet the standards for protection are registrable notwithstanding their use in generating unprotectible typefonts, but the claim to copyright must exclude any data that merely depicts the typeface or letterforms. Although most comments favored protection of the data/instructions actually depiciting particular digital typefonts, our analysis of the copyright statute and relevant judicial precedent, as well as the arguments of the comments that opposed registration (and even the comments of some of those supporting registration of some elements), convinces us that any data that merely transforms an analog visual representation of a typeface or letterform into a digital electronic typefont or letterform is not protectible as a work of authorship. The Copyright Act, 17~U.S.C.\ 101 {\it et.\ seq.} (1976), defines the term compilation as a work formed by the collection and assembling of preexisting materials or of data that are selected, coordinated, or arranged in such a way that the resulting work as a whole constitutes an original work of authorship.'' 17~U.S.C. 101. To be an original work of authorship, a compilation must include subjective elements of human selection and arrangement. {\it Financial Information, Inc.~v.\ Moody's Investor Service, Inc.}, 808~F.2d 204, 206--08 (2d Cir.\ 1986), {\it cert.}\ denied, 108 S.Ct.~79 (1987). Because the typefont data is determined by the ultimate shape of the typeface character, and requires de minimis, if any, selection and arrangement, it does not qualify as a compilation or any other original work of authorship. Proponents of registration argued that the data representing a digitized typeface should be copyrightable because, after the initial rendering of the letterform into electronic digital form, there is selection, coordination, or arrangement of data/instructions in order to generate an acceptable, final typeface image. One commentator drew an analogy to connect-the-dots'' or fill-in-the-blanks'' illustrations in children's books. The analogy is unpersuasive. A connect-the-dots'' illustration is copyrightable only if the connected'' illustration is a copyrightable pictorial or graphic work. In the case of typeface connect-the-dots,'' the connected'' illustration is an uncopyrightable typeface, and the connecting process is indistinguishable from the creation of the typeface design itself. Proponents also argued that the data representing a digitized typeface is copyrightable even though the end result---a typeface or typefont---is uncopyrightable. By analogy to a cookbook, they argued that the explanation and illustration of recipes is copyrightable even though the end result---the food product---is not. The Copyright Office agrees, of course, that original explanations and illustrations in cookbooks are copyrightable. But neither lists of ingredients nor the method of preparing the food product is copyrightable. The Copyright Office finds that digitized typeface data is more like an uncopyrightable list of ingredients than a copyrightable explanation or illustration of a process. Before the advent of digitized typeface technology, arguments were made that, in creating new typeface designs, artists expended thousands of hours of effort in preparing by hand the drawings of letters and characters that ultimately would lead to the creation of an original typeface design. After several years of consideration and a public hearing, the Copyright Office found that this effort did not result in a work of authorship. The Office refused to register claims in typeface designs or in the drawings of the letters and typefont characters because the design choices were responsive to the functional characteristics of typefonts used in high-speed printing. That is, no work of authorship existed separate from the utilitarian aspects of typefonts and letterforms. That decision was upheld in {\it Eltra Corp.~v.\ Ringer}. Under earlier technology, typeface designs were fixed in wood blocks, in cold metal, or in film fonts. With computer-digital technology, the typeface is fixed in an electronic font. The Copyright Office finds that no work of authorship is created by the process that fixes or depicts a particular typeface in a digital electronic form. Like analog typeface design, the design choices or any selection of data involved in the bitmapping, outlining, and stroke definition techniques are limited by the objective of rendering or fixing the uncopyrightable electronic font. This finding applies both to the initial scanning of the letterforms and to the subsequent refining of the typeface by curving,'' connect-the-dots,'' and other techniques. The data created is an electronic depiction of the typeface. In fact, there are fewer authorship choices involved in transforming an existing analog typeface to an electronic font than in using the digitization process to create a new typeface design. Yet clearly the typeface design and the process of creating it are uncopyrightable whether the process is digital or analog. The use of the computer in this process neither diminishes nor adds to the factors that determine copyrightability. The Copyright Office observes that more digitization of even a pre-existing copyrightable work does not result in a new work of authorship. The digitized version is a copy of the pre-existing work and would be protected as such, but no new work of authorship is created. A novel may be digitized and stored in an electronic medium. Protection depends on the status of copyright in the novel; digitization does not add any new authorship. Although the master computer program used to control the generic digitization process is protectible and may be registered, if original, this protection does not extend to the data fixing or depicting a particular typeface or typefont or to any algorithms created as an alternative means of fixing the data. The Office will register a program that can be used to create digitized versions of various typefaces but will not register the data used to depict a particular typeface or individual letterforms. If the computer program submitted for registration includes data that fixes or depicts a particular typeface, typefont, or letterform, the Office requires an appropriate disclaimer of copyright on the application to exclude the uncopyrightable data. The Copyright Office in this decision has been conscious of the interests of typeface developers and the interests of typeface users, who, in accordance with a congressional decision not to protect typefaces, are entitled to copy this uncopyrightable subject matter. While copyright protection is not available for digitized versions of typefaces, the typeface industry has other avenues of protection through unfair competition laws, contract, and perhaps trade secrecy and trademark protection. On the other hand, the congressional decision not to protect typeface designs, in addition to adhering to traditional standards of original authorship, reflects a concern about inappropriate protection of the vehicles for reproducing the printed word. If copyright protection existed for the data representing a particular typeface design, a printer who innocently used an infringing electronic typefont to print a public domain book would presumably infringe the copyright in the data fixed in the electronic font. The Copyright Office is persuaded that this result would undermine the congressional policy against protection for typeface designs. The Office therefore concludes that, if copyright protection for the master computer program alone is not adequate to encourage creativity in the field of computer-assisted typeface design, any broader protection, if appropriate, should be legislated by Congress rather than established by administrative decision-making. Congress is the appropriate forum for debating the concerns that infect the question of legal protection for typeface designs or digitized representations of typefaces. Congress can legislate limitations on the scope of protection, including any appropriate exemptions for printers or other secondary, innocent infringers.'' \bigskip Dated: September 13, 1988. Ralph Oman, Register of Copyrights. Approved by: James H. Billington, The Librarian of Congress. Contact: Dorothy Schrader, General Counsel, Copyright Office, Library of Congress, Washington, DC 20559. Telephone (202) 287-8380. \vfill\eject ============================================================================== \raggedright \raggedbottom \emergencystretch=0.5in \parindent=0pt \centerline{\bf Registrability of Computer Programs That Generate Typefaces} \centerline{\bf Copyright Office, Library of Congress.} \centerline{Federal Register Vol.~57, Pg.~6201} \centerline{Friday, February 21, 1992} \parskip=6pt \bigskip \centerline{\bf SUMMARY} The purpose of this Final Regulation is to clarify the Copyright Office's practices regarding registration of claims to copyright in computer programs used in the generation of digitized representations of typeface designs. This regulation amends 37~CFR 202.1 to state the Office's existing practice in this respect. Pursuant to Congress's judgment in the 1976 Act\footnote{$^1$}{See H.R.~Rep.\ No.~94-1476, 94th Cong., 2d Sess.\ 55 (1976): Congress has considered, but chosen to defer, the possibility of protecting the design of typefaces.'' Thus, Congress could protect typeface designs under the Copyright Act if it chose.} and case law,\footnote{$^2$}{See {\it Eltra Corp.~v.\ Ringer}, 579~F.2d\ 294 (4th~Cir.\ 1978).} the Copyright Office does not register claims to copyright in typeface designs as such, whether generated by a computer program, or represented in drawings, hard metal type, or any other form. The Office does, however, register claims in original computer programs whether or not the end result or intended use of the computer program involves uncopyrightable elements or products. In the past, the Office has required a disclaimer for computer programs containing data depicting digitized representations of typeface designs. Due to changes in the industry and the administrative burden caused by correspondence, the Office will no longer require such disclaimers. Instead, in order to avoid any confusion about the scope of certificates of registration for computer programs used in the generation of digitized representations of typeface, the Office will not accept a nature of authorship statement of entire work,'' entire computer program,'' entire text,'' or the like. Only descriptions such as computer program'' should be used. The scope of the copyright will be, as in the past, a matter for the courts to determine. \bigskip \centerline{\bf SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION} On September 29, 1988, the Copyright Office published a {\it Notice of Policy Decision\/} regarding registration practices for computer programs used in conjunction with digitized typeface, typefont, and letterforms. 53~FR 38110. That decision was the result of a {\it Notice of Inquiry\/} published on October 10, 1986. 51~FR 36410. The Policy Decision, based on the 1986 {\it Notice of Inquiry}, reiterated a number of previous registration decisions made by the Office. First, under existing law, typeface as such is not registrable. The Policy Decision then went on to state the Office's position that data that merely represents an electronic depiction of a particular typeface or individual letterform'' is also not registrable. Second, original computer programs are registrable, regardless of whether or not the functional result achieved is the generation of unregistrable typeface, typefonts, or letterforms. The Policy Decision concluded that, where a master computer program includes data that fixes or depicts a particular typeface, typefont, or letterform, the registration application must disclaim copyright in that uncopyrightable data.'' The Copyright Office has received a number of applications stating claims for computer programs used in conjunction with the generation or design of typeface, typefonts, or letterforms. In 1991, the Office became concerned that these claims indicated there had been a significant technological advance since the 1986 {\it Notice of Inquiry}. Of particular interest was the fact that some companies now license typeface in digitized form before they write a computer program permitting users to generate the typeface on low resolution and other printers. {pg\.~6202} In order to gain information, the Copyright Office held a Public Hearing on October 4, 1991 and received 21 written submissions. The majority of those testifying and submitting comments favored abandoning the disclaimer requirement. After a careful review of the testimony and the written comments, the Copyright Office is persuaded that creating scalable typefonts using already-digitized typeface represents a significant change in the industry since our previous Policy Decision. We are also persuaded that computer programs designed for generating typeface in conjunction with low resolution and other printing devices may involve original computer instructions entitled to protection under the Copyright Act. For example, the creation of scalable font output programs to produce harmonious fonts consisting of hundreds of characters typically involves many decisions in drafting the instructions that drive the printer. The expression of these decisions is neither limited by the unprotectible shape of the letters nor functionally mandated. This expression, assuming it meets the usual standard of authorship, is thus registrable as a computer program. The Office has also gained considerable administrative experience in the last three years with the use of disclaimers. A large amount of correspondence has been necessitated by the requirement of disclaimers. The public has also been confused about the effect, if any, of variants in the language of particular disclaimers. We are persuaded that the usefulness of disclaimers is outweighed by these drawbacks, and, thus, we will no longer require a disclaimer where the applicant does not state a claim in uncopyrightable material. \bigskip {\bf Final Regulation} In light of the heavy administrative burden imposed by disclaimers, the Copyright Office has concluded that the best course is to amend its regulations to state its opinion that digitized typeface as typeface is unregistrable, and to delete the disclaimer requirement. The term typeface'' is intended to encompass typefonts, letterforms, and the like. As part of the deletion of the disclaimer requirement, in order to avoid public confusion regarding the scope of certificates of registration issued for computer programs containing original instructions as well as digitized representations of typeface, applicants should not describe the nature of authorship as entire work,'' entire computer program,'' entire text'' or the like. Instead, descriptions such as computer program'' should be used. This preference regarding the nature of authorship statement will be included in Compendium~II of Copyright Office Practices, but not in the Code of Federal Regulations. Because this regulation does not represent a substantive change in the rights of copyright claimants, claimants possessing already-issued certificates cannot submit a supplementary application for an already registered work for the purpose of removing the disclaimer. With respect to the Regulatory Flexibility Act, the Copyright Office takes the position that this Act does not apply to Copyright Office rulemaking. The Copyright Office is a department of the Library of Congress and is a part of the legislative branch. Neither the Library of Congress nor the Copyright Office is an agency'' within the meaning of the Administrative Procedure Act of June 11, 1946, as amended (title~5, chapter~5 of the U.S.\ Code, subchapter~II and chapter~7). The Regulatory Flexibility Act consequently does not apply to the Copyright Office since that Act affects only those entities of the Federal Government that are agencies as defined in the Administrative Procedure Act. Alternatively, if it is later determined by a court of competent jurisdiction that the Copyright Office is an agency'' subject to the Regulatory Flexibility Act, the Register of Copyrights has determined and hereby certifies that this regulation will have no significant negative impact on small businesses. \bigskip {\bf List of Subjects in 37~CFR Part~202:} Registration of claims to copyright, Claims to copyright, Copyright registration. \bigskip {\bf Final Regulations} In consideration of the foregoing, the Copyright Office is amending part~202 of 37~CFR, chapter~II in the manner set forth below. \bigskip \centerline{\bf PART~202---REGISTRATION OF CLAIMS---AMENDED} 1. The authority citation for part 202 continues to read as follows: {\parindent=0.5in\narrower\noindent Authority: Section~702, 90~Stat.\ 2541; 17~U.S.C.\ 702. Sec.~202.1 Amended. \par} 2. Section 202.1(e) is added to read as follows: {\parindent=0.5in\narrower\noindent (e) Typeface as typeface. \par} Dated: February 4, 1992. Ralph Oman, Register of Copyrights. Approved by: James H. Billington, The Librarian of Congress. Contact: Dorothy Schrader, General Counsel, Copyright Office, Library of Congress, Washington, DC 20540. Telephone (202) 707-8380. \vfill\eject Hello. I've been trying to google this problem up, but no effect. I have a text widget, which has most of the tags I need (style B,U,I and their combinations, alignments and so on). It allows editing text, add some BUI to it, align to left/center/right, switch fonts (similar to HTML - +2,+1,+0,-1,-2,fixed). I've been wondering how can I export the text as well as the styles (and embedded objects - if that's possible at all) between my own text subclasses (these are Incr Tk subclasses of scrolledtext) and maybe to/from openoffice/ms office. I noticed OO/IE allow exchanging text as well as styles, so maybe this could also be possible between Tcl text widgets and/or Office suites? -- WK (written at Stardate 56695.4) "Data typing is an illusion. Everything is a sequence of bytes." -Todd CoramFrom Commerce Business Daily, April 1, 1997 PSA-1814 OFFICE MACHINES,TEXT PROCESSNG SYSTEMS & VISIBLE RECORD EQUIPMENT Category : <74> (Office Machines, Text Processing Systems and Visible Record Equip) Address : General Services Administration, Federal Supply Service, Office Equipment Division, FCGE, Crystal Mall Building 4, Room 503, Washington, DC 20406 Sol. no. : FCGE-94-Cl-0147-N Contact : frank norman, contract specialist, 703 305-6425, mary cunningham, contract specialist, 703 305-7139 This is a Special Open Season under 74 II and III for the above commodities only. Due : 13 Jun, 1997 SOL FCGE-94-Cl-0147-N DUE 061397 POC frank norman, contract specialist, 703 305-6425, mary cunningham, contract specialist, 703 305-7139 This is a Special Open Season under 74 II and III for the above commodities only. FSC Group 74 II and III -- Office Machines. Federal Supply Schedule 74, Parts II and III -- Office Machines, Multiple Award -- IDIQ non-mandatory requirements -- negotiated; Special Open Season for the period October 1, 1997 through June 30, 1999, FOB Destination Commodities: (General Categories) FSC Classes *5340 Anti-Theft Devices; 7435 Electronic Typewriters and Attachments; 7430 Visual Display Preparation Devices; 7450 Dictation Systems, Desktop/Portable Dictating and Transcribing Equipment. * Indicates small business set-aside. Issue Date: On or about May 15, 1997. Request for solicitations may be made by mail or fax on or before June 13, 1997. Fax number is (703)305-7135 (0087)From Commerce Business Daily, April 1, 1997 PSA-1814 OFFICE MACHINES,TEXT PROCESSNG SYSTEMS & VISIBLE RECORD EQUIPMENT Category : <74> (Office Machines, Text Processing Systems and Visible Record Equip) Address : General Services Administration, Federal Supply Service, Office Equipment Division, FCGE, Crystal Mall Building 4, Room 503, Washington, DC 20406 Sol. no. : FCGE-94-Cl-0147-N Contact : frank norman, contract specialist, 703 305-6425, mary cunningham, contract specialist, 703 305-7139 This is a Special Open Season under 74 II and III for the above commodities only. Due : 13 Jun, 1997 SOL FCGE-94-Cl-0147-N DUE 061397 POC frank norman, contract specialist, 703 305-6425, mary cunningham, contract specialist, 703 305-7139 This is a Special Open Season under 74 II and III for the above commodities only. FSC Group 74 II and III -- Office Machines. Federal Supply Schedule 74, Parts II and III -- Office Machines, Multiple Award -- IDIQ non-mandatory requirements -- negotiated; Special Open Season for the period October 1, 1997 through June 30, 1999, FOB Destination Commodities: (General Categories) FSC Classes *5340 Anti-Theft Devices; 7435 Electronic Typewriters and Attachments; 7430 Visual Display Preparation Devices; 7450 Dictation Systems, Desktop/Portable Dictating and Transcribing Equipment. * Indicates small business set-aside. Issue Date: On or about May 15, 1997. Request for solicitations may be made by mail or fax on or before June 13, 1997. Fax number is (703)305-7135 (0087) Anyone know of a way to add rules and/or set up Out of Office messages for a user without actually setting up an Outlook client and configuring it through the GUI? Tomorrow I've been tasked with updating the OOO messages for about 200 different people, and I'd rather not go about it in the manual way! I've checked out the resource kit for Exchange and can;t really find anything ... anyone out there know of something? Hi Anne, It's not as simple in Office 97 or 2000 as it was in Office 95, due to a change in the way the text box objects are implemented "floating", so it's no longer a single click to make the rounded corners box. One approach that may work (don't recall though if this is from installing the Draw98.exe download from http://officeupdate.microsoft.com tools, but, anyway, while working in Wird 97, in PageLayout view, use View=>Toolbars to be sure the Drawing Toolbar is visible. Click on AutoShape and select 'Callouts' and choose the 2nd from the left in the top (the one with rounded corners) Draw your callout, click on the document page, mouse over the callout until you get the four headed arrow then click. Grab and drag the yellow diamond on the callout 'tail' until it's back inline with the bottom edge of the callout. Save the callout as an Autotext entry for future use. ------------ <<"Anne Robinson" wrote in message news:86a8db$35f$1@news8.svr.pol.co.uk... I used to be able to make a text box with rounded corners in Office 95 but now, in Office 97 I cannot seem to find a way to do this! Can anyone help please?>> -- Hope that helps, Bob Buckland ?:-) http://go.compuserve.com/MSOfficeforum MS Office/Word MVP BusinessWare Consulting - Southern California *Courtesy is not expensive and it pays big dividends* Win98se HA016?F1LRO010@F1LRO020.ORTENAUKREIS.DE