Tech Insider					     Technology and Trends

			      USENET Archives

Newsgroups: comp.unix.questions,comp.unix.bsd,alt.suit.att-bsdi
Path: sparky!uunet!utoday!wagner
From: (Mitch Wagner)
Subject: net.views -- USL/BSDI lawsuit -- responses
Organization: Open Systems Today
Date: Fri, 04 Sep 92 19:24:41 GMT
Message-ID: <>
Followup-To: comp.unix.questions 
Lines: 1117

Here we go with the responses to the latest net.views. Thanks to all
who responded to my recent plea for help; and my apologies to those
who replied the first time and whose responses I lost because of my
foolish lack of backups of the net.views file. You can certainly rest
assured that I have a good backup policy in place now.

Thanks also to those who ignored my invitation to flame me for not
making backups. 


On another topic, if anyone would like to suggest a question for us to
use for net.views, I'd love to hear it. You can find information on
how to reach me in my sig, below.


And now, net.views.

The question was:

     Unix Systems Laboratories recently sued software company
     BSDI and the Regents of the University of California at
     Berkeley, charging that BSDI's commercial Unix workalike
     and UCB's free software violated USL's intellectual property
     rights. Was USL justified in filing the suit?

The responses are attached, below.

Thanks again to all---participants and readers---and apologies again
for the administrative snafu, earlier.

                         -- mitch w.
Mitch Wagner, senior editor, Open Systems Today
2353 Massachusetts Ave. Suite 47, Cambridge, MA 02140  (617)547-8485  CIS:70212,51  GEnie:MITCH.WAGNER  
For subscription information, please call 516/562-5882

From: Berk Walker <!techsys!b...@uunet.UUCP>

I am a manager for Hamada of America, I speak only for myself.

Whereas I believe in our justice system (in general), and it's not fair 
to try someone in the press, or in this case, usenet, if USL does not 
come forth with /specific/ allegations, I feel I need to act.

I have 3 phone lines, and minor influence over several others, in this 
and other states.  I will be forced to remove AT&T as my LD supplier, 
with written notice as to why. (this includes changing cellular handler). 
 APPLE never should have won, and XEROX should have sued apple.  Of 
course, if UC Regents are considered a co-conspirator, and do have the 
funding to do war with USL, and I feel that BSDI isn't seriously 
threatened, I will just sit and watch....... but USL will probably file 
for an injunction against BSDI shipping or offering for sale product.

And if BSDI /did/ do a direct port of (C) code?.... well they deserve to 
be hanged.  Unfortunately, I will probably make the decision to protest 
or not long before substantial proof is shown.  Then I will have struck 
against the righteous..... maybe.  I use AT&T in thanks for everything 
Bell Labs had done.

lots of words - sorry the meaning is so thin.

Berk Walker

From: Bob Pendelton <!b...@uunet.UUCP>

Bob Pendleton
Senior Staff Engineer
HAL Computer Systems

Tough question. 

The answer is that I really don't know. But I care very much. I've had
access to USL sources, even if I haven't looked at them. Does this
mean that USL can claim ownership on anything I write that has a
function similiar to anything in the USL UNIX distribution?  Maybe it

The thought that I can't claim (or at least can't prove) ownership of
my own ideas is chilling.

			Bob P.

From: CJ Canon <!Clement.J.Ca...@uunet.UUCP>

RESPONSE:	No - I don't believe that AT&T/USL is justified in filing
against UCB Regents (CSRG) and BSDI. After reading the views of many people, 
some for, and others against, I find it completely petty and underhand that 
USL should, in effect, snap at the hand which gave it so many features (UCB) to
put into it's own UNIX (whose TM?). On the BSDI front, I find it reasonable
for USL to request BSDI to remove the 1-800-ITS-UNIX phone number, but only
because that number could actually be misleading advertising. Maybe the number
1-800-ITS-BSD would have been a better choice.

	However, the request that anyone who has seen AT&T source should
be barred from working in the field for a competitor is absolutely ludicrous.
I am reminded by the flavour of this request of the suit that broke up Ma Bell
and also of the suit launched against IBM - both anti-trust cases. It makes
one wonder whether or not any of USL's lawyers have thought about the 
implications for them if this case succeeds - would success not leave them 
open to an anti-trust suit?
	And then on the matter of intellectual property, if USL is so 
concerned about their rights, why did they not sue UC Berkeley earlier in
their (USL's) existence? 

	To sum up: I hope that whoever presides over the suit dismisses 
USL's case, and that complete costs are awarded to BSDI and UC Berkeley.
It might be a purely selfish motive on my part, but I certainly don't want
to be forced out of a preferred career path merely because I've seen AT&T
source and might possibly at some later date remember that code and base
further work on what I remember.

CJ Canon


   Australian EST Daytime phone: +61 6 281 5626  (also fax)
   Student, (2nd year Maths --> B.Sc), ANU

  I read my email every day, if further comment/whatever is needed.

From: CJ Canon <!Clement.J.Ca...@uunet.UUCP>

C. James Canon, and the ANU is the Australian National University, located in
Canberra, the Australian Capital Territory (A.C.T.)


From: Chaitanya Nagappa <!naga...@uunet.UUCP>
Organization: University of Houston

Posting this from a friend's account because of some strong feelings (about
the subj.). I have had my share of DOS and VMS, and even though each (seriously!)
had its share of good points the whole idea of it being controlled be one
single entity with its limited vision (mo' money, mo' money) as the only
impetus, I finally found myself liking Unix. Inspite of all its idiosyncracies
and difficulties, Unix (NO *TM*) has moved ahead offering its benefits to
the outside world not because the brilliant minds at AT&T found new ways of
doing things (and not releasing it / or releasing it with undocumentation),
but because the good folks at BSD released it gratis. I recently went to a
talk by the local USL manager, about SVR4.2. The feeling I got was that
this is a pure business minded enterprise now; if possible they'll put a
charge on each character that you type into the machine. The talk itself was
that Unix belongs to AT&T, and that it did not matter whose version that you
use. It seems that USL has become a larger version of Microsoft, a bigger
bully. If USL manages to place a leash on outside enhancements of Unix,
I can guarantee that this is the last major version of Unix that we will
see. Having extensively used software from people such as GNU, kermit, etc.
I wish we could move to an Operating System with the same amount of ties.

About myself - I work as a System Analyst doing programming on X.25 &
Unix, and some system administration among other things. The company
I work for is US Videotel which is in the electronic information field
(a la Prodigy, Compuserve, etc.). If you need to send email to me, you
can either to this address, with the first line addressing it to "Ravi"
or send to "". Phone # is (713)-877-4272.

(Ravindran Ramachandran)

From: Contr Karl Vogel <!vo...@uunet.UUCP>
Organization: Control Data Systems Inc.


Mitch> Unix System Laboratories recently sued software company BSDI and the
Mitch> University of California at Berkeley, charging that BSDI's commercial
Mitch> Unix workalike and UCB's free software violated USL's intellectual
Mitch> property rights. Was USL justified in filing the suit?

       The first thing that came to mind when I learned about the lawsuit was
       "We're the phone company.  We don't care.  We don't have to."  I've
       followed the BSDI efforts in "Dr. Dobbs", and applaud them for their
       ingenuity and generosity.

       [ I know, I know; USL is not exactly the same as AT&T, but they've
       inherited some of AT&T's poor attitude.]

       If USL can prove beyond a shadow of a doubt that BSDI ripped them off
       by pointing to a piece of code and saying "THIS came from us, and we
       can demonstrate that to be true", I'll listen.  I have no respect for
       a thief.  However, I haven't heard about any such evidence being
       introduced, and until I do, USL is guilty of mis-using the legal
       system by trying to kill BSDI through the "chilling effect" of a
       lawsuit.  Innocent until proven guilty.

       I can't do anything to USL to persuade them to come up with a clear
       rights violation before they start suing someone, but I was thinking
       about writing a letter to AT&T and telling them I was switching
       long-distance carriers because of what USL is doing.  I have a
       question for the net:  would this hurt USL, or are they totally
       separate corporate entities?  How much influence does AT&T have over

Karl Vogel              Internet:  []
Analyst/Programmer          UUCP:   ...!uunet!!vogel
Control Data Sys. Inc.    

Sometimes, you're the windshield .... sometimes, you're the bug.
							--Mark Knopfler

From: "Daryl V. McDaniel" <!dar...@uunet.UUCP>


Briefly, here are my views on the USL/BSDI suit.  I have read a summary of
the complaint, ftpd from uunet, and base my comments partly on that.  This
year, our company decided to go with SVR4 to replace our aging BSD4.2 and
BSD4.3 systems.  I also base part of my response upon my experiences
bringing up SVR4.

USL claims that the NET2 release discloses USL and AT&T trade secrets.  The
strongest argument against this is that every aspect of the Unix operating
system is taught in schools today.  This was partly the original intent
when Unix was licensed to Universities.  One can not maintain a trade
secret while facilitating the wide disclosure of its details.

USL also claims that Bostic, et al, engaged in a conspiracy for the last
several years to force the regents to release USL proprietary source code.
It is difficult to prove or disprove a persons intent.  Experience leads me
to believe that this scenario is highly unlikely.  Where I have seen this
type of argument used before has always been a case of "grasping for

For the last several years, AT&T and USL have been promoting Unix as an
operating system for business use.  My experiences with their product span
from V6 in the early seventies, to SVR4 today.  I have watched the quality
of AT&T/USL Unix rise and fall over the years.  Product quality has been in
steady decline since SVR3.  It appears that AT&T/USL believes that the
addition of features is what makes an operating system "business ready."
During this same period, I have seen the Berkeley variant rise steadily in
quality and robustness.  From the earliest I can remember, a goal of the
group at Berkeley has been to produce an AT&T free version of Unix.

When our company decided that it was necessary to upgrade our old
(1985-1987 vintage) machines running BSD4.2 and BSD4.3 Unix, we decided
that we should switch to USL's SVR4 for the commercial support, robustness,
and modern-ness of a mainstream product.  It took two months to get SVR4
running to a point we could begin commercial operations using it.  Within
these two months, we identified and reported 163 different bugs of which 14
were fatal and 3 were the fault of the software vendor (not USL).  The 14
fatal bugs and remaining 146 non-fatal ones are directly attributable to
flaws in USL's product.

It is my belief that USL saw the availability of a low-cost product such as
BSDI's as a serious threat to their market.  With a large community of
users with access to source code, a natural maturation of the product will
take place.  The result will be a Unix product from BSDI that is robust,
performs as claimed, is well supported, and universally accepted.  Witness
the success of the GNU offerings.  The GNU C compiler is now accepted as
the "compiler of choice" on many platforms.

Due to the deficiencies of the USL product, only a large software
organization can afford to generate and maintain bug fixes and merge them
into subsequent USL releases.  At some point, the amount of code fixes
will exceed the size of original code.  Then we will see companies thinking
about replacing all of the USL code and having a product which they
completely control.

If USL wins, the world will be much worse off.  Universities and research
labs will be afraid to accept "Educational" and "Research" licenses for
companies technologies.  We will end up with many companies duplicating
effort and using valuable resources fixing and maintaining other companies
products instead of developing and maintaining their own products.  In
fact, it will significantly inhibit innovation, since the majority of new
developments are "derived" from previous developments, and USL claims that
new ideas derived from old ideas are the property of the owner of the
original idea.

Unfortunately, it is the opinion of our corporate lawyer that USL will win.
Not because of technical or legal merit, but because they have the money.

Daryl V. McDaniel
Principal Engineer
Aloha Research Group		
10700 SW B-H Hwy.  #420		
Beaverton, OR 97005

From: "David B. Teague" <!TEA...@uunet.UUCP>

I am David Teague, Associate Professor of Computer Science at
Western Carolina University. I feel strongly that AT&T has
overstepped the bounds of decency in suing BSDI and others.

U Cal Berkeley submitted the NET 2 tape to AT&T for their perusal
and comment. They declined to do so, and ignored the NET 2 tapes
until someone actually began to develop an operating system by
filling in the gaps in that software. Then they sue, damaging
CMU's Mach effort, the FSF's Hurd effort, Jolitz's effort, and the
one commercial effort, BSDI.

All responsible people should boycott AT&T, changing any computer
support to another company, changing the long distance phone
service from AT&T to MCI, or Sprint, and at least writing to them
of their displeasure. (that's my opinion) 

  David B Teague 
  Boycott AT&T. Evil be to the Evil Empire in same measure as they
  meet out to users of NET-2.
  Western Carolina University     BAN USER INTERFACE COPYRIGHTS & 
  Room 308 Stillwell Building     SOFTWARE PATENTS. For info email
  Computer Science Dept           the League for Programming Freedom
  Cullowhee, NC 28723         
  Justice William O. Douglas wrote: "As the night fall does not come
  at once, neither does oppression. It is in such twilight that we
  must all be aware of change in the air - however slight - lest we
  become unwitting victims of the darkness.

From: David Muir Sharnoff <!m...@uunet.UUCP>

Sigh, when will people learn to do backups.

(Answer: it takes about five years on the average
I think, because you have to loose a few things
before the message gets through.)

I have no idea what I sent to you the first time.
I now keep copies of my outgoing mail. 


     Unix Systems Laboratories recently sued software company BSDI and the
     Regents of the University of California at Berkeley, charging that BSDI's
     commercial Unix workalike and UCB's free software violated USL's
     intellectual property rights. Was USL justified in filing the suit?

At one time, AT&T ran an office that you could submit your source code
to for evaluation.  They would tell you if they thought that it 
infringed on their intellectual property.  The decision was made by
computer scientists rather than lawyers.  One can only theorize about 
why they shut down the office, but my guess is that they felt that they
could keep ownership of more code if the decisions were made by 
the courts.

USL's actions are reprehensible because they are using legal tactics
desiged solely to expend the limited resources of the much smaller
company that they are fighting.  If they were interested in resolving 
fairly the real issues in the case they would be pursuing it differently.

Technically, they are light-years behind if you ignore the 
75% of sysVR4 is derrived from BSD.  Their approach shows them to be 
operating under the "if you can't innovate, litigate" creed.  

Assuming that BSDI does not suffocate in the legal slime and that
UC Berkeley actually fights, the suit will probably resolve around
creating a new legal definition for derivative work.  If USL/AT&T 
wins completly then they may gain retroactive ownership of most of 
the operating systems research done in the last seventeen years.  This 
will be an indirect death-blow to UNIX and possibly the US software
industry.  The suit has already caused projects that would have
benefitted many to be cancelled or delayed.

To protest AT&T's attemted enforcement of their backing-store patent,
I switched to MCI.  To protest this suit, I've dropped my AT&T Universal
Card.  Please join my boycott.

David Muir Sharnoff
Systems Engineer
TRW Financial Systems

Organization: eklektix - Boulder, Colorado
From: Dick Dunn <!...@uunet.UUCP>

Well, just consider it this way:  I sent a response and kept a copy.  After
a few days, I got an acknowledgment, at which point I deleted my copy.  If
you think I'm going to write another one, think again.

I expect you've lost the more thoughtful responses.  The folks who will
write again, except for those who actually kept copies of their mail all
this time, are more likely to be the rabid ones.  I don't know how you can
patch around this one; I don't think you can.  It's not like starting over
from scratch on the question.

It's OK for me...other trade rags (and a newspaper) have phone-interviewed
me about the suit, so my opinions will show up here and there.
Dick Dunn   -or-   raven!rcd    Boulder, Colorado
	by (5.65/2.22G/4.1.1)

From: "Gregory G. Woodbury" <!...@uunet.UUCP>

Gregory G. Woodbury
Duke University Center for Demographic Studies
Systems Programmer

	I find myself vary confused about this issue.  Based on the
discussions on the net, and the readings that I have done on the event
in various places, it seems to me that there is some sort of violation
of the spirit of the intellectual property rights that AT&T/USL hold in
the Unix brand Operating System, but (IMO) not a technical violation of
the letter of the licenses and laws.
	The filings by USL in the case (as published) are so vague and
unclear as to which parts of the code they are claiming infringement on,
and the possibilities that they may be attempting to compare a modern
UNIX source code version against the BSD source code where there may be
large swaths of the BSD enhancements integrated into the USL code, make
me very uncomfortable with USL's intentions in the case.
	The "politics" of the suit, also, cannot be ignored.  There are
a number of "Edition 7" derived "unix-like" products out there on the
market, that AT&T and USL could potentially go after, but they decide to
pick on BSDI and UCB-CSRG (while ignoring the "volunteer effort" OS also
derived from the Net-2 sources.)  This certainly appears to be intended
to have a "chilling" effect on developing systems based on the BSD Net-2
Gregory G. Woodbury @ The Wolves Den UNIX, Durham NC
UUCP: ...dukcds!wolves!ggw   ...duke!wolves!ggw           [use the maps!]
Domain: g...@wolves.Durham.NC.US
[The line eater is a boojum snark! ]           <standard disclaimers apply>

From: John Hensley <usenix!!j...@uunet.UUCP>
Organization: CliniCom Incorporated, Boulder, CO

Justified or not, it's the absolute wrong thing to do when trying to sell
an infant UNIX product to users who have been enjoying CSRG's work in one
form or another for years. Destiny/UNIXware/whatever was looking like a strong
competitor to Windows NT, Solaris, Next Step and crew, but now I hope this
will be the last we hear of USL.


John Hensley
Systems Administrator
CliniCom, Incorporated

(P.S. Thanks for screwing up -- I missed the original request!)

John Hensley           |      | "You think slower when you graze." -- Holling |

From: Jon Peatfield <!jp...@uunet.UUCP>

Well I was just about to delete my copy of that mail...

I wrote:

Well, I've read the initial complaint, but havn't had a chance to look
at the extended suit yet, and this is the big one since it names UCB
and all the Regents of UC for claiming that NET/2 is free of any AT&T
code... so this is entirely based on the first complaint and what I've
read on the net.

It would appear that USL are attempting to force a small startup
company into failing, by making them fight a legal battle which
appears to be totally without cause.  In particulat the NET/1 and
NET/2 releases have been made avaialable by the UCB for several years
without complaint by USL.  Indeed in neither of the complaints have
USL explained what they believe to be proprietary to USL in the NET/2
release.  They are now demanding some form of comparison between
versions of code -- and here I'll assume they want a comparison
between the last version AT&T shipped to UCB many years ago and the
NET/2 -- yet they have had access to NET/2 since it's release by UCB,
and can't point to the offending bits...

While I would not want to deny a company the right to pursue it's
rights to prevent unauthorised use of proprietary material, this does
not seem to be the case here.  Perhaps USL are just worried about how
Destiny will fair against the much cheaper offerings made possible by
the release of the BSD NET/2 code.  Unix and Destiny are trademarks of
AT&T and USL (I think.)

My name:	Jon Peatfield
My job:		Computer Officer
My university:	Cambridge University (Department of Applied Maths and
		Theoritical Physics) U.K.
My phone number: +44 223 338752 (work) +44 223 845229 (home)
(answering machine at home, since this is GMT +1 (BST actually), my
home number is probably more useful for leaving messages in your
daytime.  I assume you know how to dial international calls...)

Since then I've read the second complaint too, and I can't see any
reasonable interpretation which should stand up in a court of law.
However, courts being what they are once can never tell, since the
court can be easily pursuaded by good lawyers, rather than on the
technical issues.  I'm hoping for it to get thrown out, but I've heard
of worse things getting accepted by the courts.

-- Jon Peatfield

From: Jonathan Eunice <!jonat...@uunet.UUCP>

	Unix Systems Laboratories recently sued software company BSDI and the
	Regents of the University of California at Berkeley, charging that 
	BSDI's commercial Unix workalike and UCB's free software violated USL's
	intellectual property rights. Was USL justified in filing the suit?

Of course USL is justified in taking any and all legal actions its
management deems necessary to protect its property and its rights.
Whether our laws properly define property and intellectual rights
relative to software is a completely different question, as is whether
attacking BSDI or UCB will best serve USL's ends and interests.  But
the law gives "the rules," and everyone (including USL) has a right to
play as agressively as possible within those rules.

Where USL is clearly unjustified is its continual hyping of the
"openness" of its key product, UNIX System V Release 4.  The recent
legal action simply confirms an oft-hidden message delivered several
years ago with the AT&T-internal slogan, "UNIX(r) is a five-letter
word"--ie, that UNIX System V is proprietary and USL has a selfish
interest in it no weaker than IBM's interest in MVS, or DEC's in VAX/VMS.

We are deluded if we believe that UNIX System V (and its companion
"standard," SVID) is magically "open," and that USL cares primarily
about advancing peace, goodwill, and good operating systems among
humanity.  USL is a business, with a bottom line.  SRV4 and SVID are
only slightly less proprietary than SAA or the Macintosh, and equal on
the proprietary/open continuum to AIX, A/UX, Coherent, DG/UX, DYNIX,
ES/IX, HP-UX, ODT, Solaris, ULTRIX or any of the other
standards-oriented systems based on what began as "Unix" two decades
ago inside BTL. 

Jonathan Eunice
Research Manager/Software
D.H. Brown Associates

From: Karl Lehenbauer <!k...@uunet.UUCP>
Organization: NeoSoft Communications Services -- 

I think that as long as USL saw the NET-2 release as nothing more than a
grab bag of software technology, they didn't have a problem with it.
When they discovered that talented hackers had been able to cobble together
the missing pieces and produce a credible 4.3 BSD system (allegedly) free of 
their copyrights, they totally freaked.

Ironically, many of the similarities between the two systems came from
AT&T/USL adopting code from Berkeley.  For a GUI, both systems run X-windows, 
which of course originated at MIT.

Karl Lehenbauer
Member of Technical Staff
-- Email for info on getting interactive Internet access.
You will now awaken feeling relaxed and refreshed, remembering everything 
you've read except the details of the Omega contingency plan.
-- Email for info on getting interactive Internet access.
You will now awaken feeling relaxed and refreshed, remembering everything 
you've read except the details of the Omega contingency plan.
From: Karl Lehenbauer <!k...@uunet.UUCP>

Forgive me.  We are located in Houston, Texas.

-- Email for info on getting interactive Internet access.
You will now awaken feeling relaxed and refreshed, remembering everything 
you've read except the details of the Omega contingency plan.

From: Michael Bentley <!mich...@uunet.UUCP>
Organization: /etc/organization

I am no lawyer.  As a non-lawyer, I feel confident in saying that USL
is doing the Wrong Thing.  I read through all the documents (from uunet)
related to the matter, and have concluded that the AT&T/USL position is
one of random flameage (and wholly content free).

If USL insists on trying to keep the world from using the Unix name (the
only specific complaint that I saw in the aforementioned documentation), I
think we can all learn to say GNU!

Michael Bentley
no company (unemployed)
no title (usually programmer)

|  Michael S. Bentley (Looking for a way back to California) |
|  VoiceNet :                                                |
|  E-mail   :                       |

From: Multics <!mult...@uunet.UUCP>
Organization: The Voice of Fate

Since UNIX is based so strongly on Multics, shouldn't Honeywell consider
sueing AT&T for the same reasons AT&T is sueing BSDI and UCB?

I've heard that the older UNIX manuals even acknowledge Multics as the
parent of UNIX.

Richard Shetron, John Grady Inc.
I'm not availibe by phone during the day, though I will be home this
monday packing for my vacation.  (518) 271-6005.  I'll be in and out
most of the day.
Richard Shetron
What is the Meaning of Life?      There is no meaning,
It's just a consequence of complex carbon based chemistry; don't worry about it
The Super 76, "Free Aspirin and Tender Sympathy", Las Vegas Strip.
From: Multics <!mult...@uunet.UUCP>

Richard Shetron, John Grady Inc., 358 Broadway suite 402,
Saratoga Springs, NY 12180.

NOTE:we do not use unix at work, I only have access at work.  My employer
knows nothing about anything except Bluebird SuperDos and Wang 2200.

Richard Shetron
What is the Meaning of Life?      There is no meaning,
It's just a consequence of complex carbon based chemistry; don't worry about it
The Super 76, "Free Aspirin and Tender Sympathy", Las Vegas Strip.
From: Multics <!mult...@uunet.UUCP>

It was written originally to run Data General Business basic on a pc in
multi-user mode.  It also runs Niakwa Basic-2C a wang 2200 emulator,
HIGH-C, and I believe a DEC DIBOL compiler of some sort.

There are no directories, instead there are 64 user groups per disk.

Richard Shetron
What is the Meaning of Life?      There is no meaning,
It's just a consequence of complex carbon based chemistry; don't worry about it
The Super 76, "Free Aspirin and Tender Sympathy", Las Vegas Strip.
From: Multics <!mult...@uunet.UUCP>

Its neither DOS compatable or better the DOS.  MS-DOS 2.0 and maybe even
1.0 are better, except SuperDos is multiuser.  It uses technology that I
always thought was proven obsolete by IBM when they invented the methods.
All users get 1 fixed size partition allocated when the system boots.
The older versions designed to run on the PC limits the partition size to
remaining memory in the base partitioin or 64K in expanded memory.  the
newer version allows use of expanded memory on 386+ machines and partition
size is limited to memory size, which I think is limited to 16MB total.

There is no command processor, i/o redirection, etc.
Whatever I want, JGI is a small software firm, John is the president and
holds all officer's positions and I'm the programming staff.  Thee is a
part time secretary.  We are listed in D&B's business credit ratings listings.
When John wants me to sound important, my title is sometime listed as
Manager of software R&D or similier types of titles.  I just tend to call
myself a programmer/analyst/software engineer.

Richard Shetron
What is the Meaning of Life?      There is no meaning,
It's just a consequence of complex carbon based chemistry; don't worry about it
The Super 76, "Free Aspirin and Tender Sympathy", Las Vegas Strip.
	by himnariki.cs.UMD.EDU (5.64/UMIACS-0.9/04-05-88)

From: 'Olafur Gudmundsson <!o...@uunet.UUCP>

Forwarded old message (slightly edited), with an addition 
------- Forwarded Message

From: ogud (Olafur Gudmundsson)

You asked about my oppinion on the USL suit. 

It stinks!!
After reading the brief filed with the court, my reaction one of shock.
These USL people are out of sync with the real world. 
BSD has contributed a lot to the evolution of UNIX while the
contributions by USL are marginal (at best). V32 is a 14 year old system
that was outdated by BSD 4.1 and AT&T own Release 7. All the ideas of 
UNIX have been well documented in books and articles over the last decade
so what is the fuzz about.  The fuzz is about control USL wants to become
single source of UNIX (impossible dream given who works there), they must 
think that they can run BSDI out of business and that is a prerequisite 
for gaining monopoly on UNIX, and guarantees them and their lawyers 
lifetime employment!

Or their goal is to gain 100% controll of where people like me,
that have seen UNIX source code, work. If they want to dictate to me and
othere where we can work and what we are permitted to do. They will end their
life the same way as the pigs in "Animal farm".

- -	-	-	-	-	-	-	-	-
Olafur Gudmundsson  Dept. of Computer Science University of Maryland
Internet:               UUCP: {...!}uunet!mimsy!ogud
UPS: College Park MD. 20742                                         
Research Faculty 
------- End of Forwarded Message

From: Paul Nash <!p...@uunet.UUCP>

For a number of reasons, most of which other have stated on the net, I
feel that USL are _not_ justified.  They certainly give the impression
of being yet another monolith that is getting upset at seeing someone
else trying to introduce competition.  Can you say "phone company"?
They are acting just like IBM :-(.

Paul Nash, M.Eng
Network Development Consultant, CSIR
PO Box 395, Pretoria, 0001 South Africa

 Paul Nash                                         p...@frcs.Alt.ZA
 Box 12475, Onderstepoort, 0110 South Africa         +27-12-5611879

      "You don't want to get locked into open systems" -- IBM
From: Paul Nash <!p...@uunet.UUCP>

CSIR == Council for Scientific and Industrial Research (sort-of NSF
clone [-ish]).  I am a "Network Consultant" == resident guru.


 Paul Nash                                         p...@frcs.Alt.ZA
 Box 12475, Onderstepoort, 0110 South Africa                       

      "You don't want to get locked into open systems" -- IBM
          Thu,  3 Sep 92 14:34:20 PST


Oh, sorry
Los Angeles AirForce Base  Space & Missle Center / Something or other I've 
never been able to figure out the rest of it.


Organization: Taronga Park BBS
From: Peter da Silva <!pe...@uunet.UUCP>

Smooth. Let's see if I can recall...

                                                         ^^^^^^^^^ filing?


If they'd done so three years ago when Berkeley started shipping large
subsets of "freed" code, before they'd established an expectation that
this code was indeed free, maybe. As it is, they've encouraged a lot of
people to invest a lot of resources in this code, and are clearly trying
to use FUD to hurt a potential competitor rather than simply protect
their legitimate rights. The fact that they waited until the 11th hour
to include the Net/2 release in the suit bears this out... if their
trade secrets were what they were worrying about they'd have hit THAT
first, and hit Net/1 as well.

Peter da Silva
Lead Software Engineer
Ferranti International Controls Corporation
                         Have you hugged your wolf today?        'U`

Peter da Silva, Taronga Park BBS, Houston, TX  

From: Phil Nelson <!p...@uunet.UUCP>

This is a hard question to answer.  My "reaction" is no.  If they are
claiming actual copyright violation, they I can see it as "justified."
On the other hand, if they are claiming a "look-and-feel" type
violation, then I think they are not justified in filing suit.

From what I have heard (not know), USL is not claiming that BSDI or UCB
is distributing AT&T (or USL) copyrighted materials, just that it looks
similar.  IF this really is the case, then I think that USL is wrong,
and if USL does not withdraw their suit, then the entire UN*X community
should join a boycott against AT&T long distance service.  Such a
boycott should be publicized.

Phil Nelson
Assistant Professor of Computer Science
Western Washington University
Bellingham, WA 89226-9062

Member of the League for Programming Freedom

From: Russell Nelson <!nel...@uunet.UUCP>
Organization: Crynwr Software

Moreover, was it wise?  With NT nipping at Unix's heels, should the
"real" Unix vendors be arguing with each other?  Better 10% of a size
N^2 market than 90% of a size N market...

-russ <>  I'm proud to be a humble Quaker!
Crynwr Software            Crynwr Software sells packet driver support.
11 Grant St.                                 
Potsdam, NY 13676                          

From: Russell Nelson <!nel...@uunet.UUCP>
Organization: Crynwr Software

Oh, why, President, of course.  Unless you want me to be Head of R&D,
or maybe, Clerk, or perhaps just Head Janitor.  :)

-russ <>  I'm proud to be a humble Quaker!
Crynwr Software            Crynwr Software sells packet driver support.
11 Grant St.
Potsdam, NY 13676

From: Ted Lemon <lupine!mel...@uunet.UUCP>

It is clear from reading the two USL complaints (which I obtained from
uunet) that at least one motivation of this lawsuit is to drive BSDI out
of business by exposing them to a long and involved legal process.    My
reason for believing this is that the suit makes a very large number of
very broad, vague claims, and also proposes a rather bizarre conspiracy
theory that makes no sense based on my knowledge of the people involved.
Barristry of this kind is a shameful misuse of our legal system.

It is possible that there may be some code in the Net2 release which is
derived from the AT&T Unix 32V sources that Berkeley received from AT&T
many years ago, and if that is the case, Berkeley should certainly be
required to remove that code from any public BSD distribution.   However,
at this late date it's hard to imagine what that code might be, and it's
even harder to imagine how the release of that code could cause significant
harm to USL.

Of course, it's quite obvious how the use of Net2 to produce a UNIX-like
system without requiring a UNIX license could harm USL, but removing any
remaining 32V code from the Net2 distribution probably wouldn't significantly
impede the implementation of a UNIX-like system from Net2.   USL's claims
regarding trade secrets are clearly nonsense - very little about UNIX as
it is today is in any way based on UNIX as it was at the time of 32V, and
that part of the interface that is the same is well-known to the computing
community and cannot be covered by any sort of trade secret protection.

I am a senior software engineer at NCD, and the opinions expressed above
are my own and have no known (by me) relationship to the opinions of NCD.


From: George W Herbert <!...@uunet.UUCP>

	As anyone who's been reading the Usenet
discussions can attest, the biggest problem with
the USL/BSDI/UCB suit is confusion over exactly
what it is.
	Is it a claim that there is AT&T code
left in the Berkeley Net/2 release?
	Is it an attempt to claim that anything
that walks, talks, and swaps like UNIX is USL
	Or is it a fishing expedition by USL
trying to harrass BSDI and Berkeley?
	We can't tell.  While the suit makes some
explicit claims (that Net/2 infringes on USL's
trade secrets, as does BSDI's work) it doesn't
tell us wether they refer to bits of code or the
functionality or the concept.  USL hasn't
come clean and explained exactly what they're
referring to, and Berkeley and BSDI apparently
don't know.
	Personally, I dislike the suit.  It seems,
and I admit this is just a feeling, like USL
is trying to claim that anything that works
like USL Unix and looks sort of like AT&T Unix
is theirs.  It seems like a nasty turnabout from
the previous AT&T position of letting unencumbered
sections of BSD releases be freely released
to the world.  But, like just about everyone else
I don't really know.  And that's what worries me
the most, right now.

-George William Herbert
Berkeley, CA

From: Doug Carter <!do...@uunet.UUCP>

As in the past, AT&T seems only to care about UNIX after someone
does something meaningful with it. The fine efforts of the people
at Berkeley turned a bunch of development tools into a useful 
operating system. It was that same effort that got AT&T seeing 
enough dollar signs for them to produce System V. Now that Berkeley
has finished the job, the only way AT&T can figure to get a cut is
through litigation. AT&T is to be commended for the concepts and 
methods that UNIX has brought to all computing environments. They
are to be criticized for their continued mindless manangement of
UNIX, a global success, despite their folly.

	Doug Carter
	A satisfied BDSI customer
	Beaverton, Oregon.


Gosh, I would love to have a free (UCB), or low cost (BSDI), full blown Unix 
on my desktop.  Then I wouldn't need OS/2.  Unfortunately, since USL owns the 
Unix name and source code, and both UCB and BSDI had access to that source 
code, it is likely the code in the UCB and BSDI products infringes on the USL 
copyright.  It's not nice to build a house with stolen lumber.  And though I 
hate lawyers, it is nice to have snakes in the grass when the gophers are 
nibbling at your garden.

Chuck Paussa
Sr Systems Engineer
Los Angeles, CA


	To answer your question - USL had absolutely no
	moral or technical rights to file their
	completely unjustified lawsuit
	against BSDI.

	This opinion is mine and has nothing to do with
	my employer.

	Uri Blumenthal
	Research Staff Member.

From: Dave Stokes <!comtec!sto...@uunet.UUCP>

I glad that when the wheel was invented that nobody claimed
intellectual 'property' or we would all still be walking or
riding horses!  I guess U$L is now free to go after MINIX
since that also is a work alike.  It seems like U$L is picking
off the 'commerical easy targets' and maybe they'll go after
the CP/M folk next!

David Stokes

From: merlin <!merlin%neuro.usc....@uunet.UUCP>

The copyright law is intended to protect the right to profit from one's
writings by forbidding plagiarism and/or wholesale duplication without
just compensation to the author.  In the present case, USL is claiming
a property interest in software designed and written by a large number
of contributors working in government laboratories, public universities, 
and private organizations throughout the world.  The 4.3BSD-NET2 source 
code is a copyrighted collection of programs owned by the U. C. Regents,
publically certified as containing no source code belonging to AT&T/USL,
and licensed for use, modification, and redistribution for any purpose.
U. C. Regents carefully screened all contributions to the 4.3BSD-NET2 in
order to avoid any possible infringement of code derived from AT&T UNIX.
As a consequence, USL appears to have no legitimate legal basis for the
present lawsuit against U. C. Regents and Berkeley Software Design, Inc.

Alexander-James Annala
Principal Investigator
Neuroscience Image Analysis Network
HEDCO Neuroscience Building, Fifth Floor
University of Southern California
University Park
Los Angeles, CA 90089-2520


The current legal situation (patents, copyrights) re software is a mess.
This is an area the US is the world leader in. It won't be if we keep
extracting money from businesses to have lawyers debate things in court,
particularly since no-one seems to have the wit or grace to admit that
*anything* is obviously right or wrong today (example: politicians).
Nor will the US succeed if small software businesses are excluded by forcing 
legal costs (e.g. patent searches) up them.

ATT vs BSDI is not a clear-cut issue either way, but is certainly part of
this obnoxious trend towards litigation as the basis for business competition.
Whatever happened to making a better product or doing a better job of
  Dr. Peter J. Welcher            EMAIL:
  Mathematics Department, M/S 9E
  572 Holloway Road
  U.S. Naval Academy              
  Annapolis, MD  21402-5002


Professor. Didn't my signature have it ?
I do/did s/w consulting, which my have some influence on why I think
the current s/w patent situation is beyond absurd. It 
in principle puts small guys
out of business writing new software!
  Dr. Peter J. Welcher            EMAIL:
  Mathematics Department, M/S 9E 
  572 Holloway Road
  U.S. Naval Academy              
  Annapolis, MD  21402-5002


Take two.

And do better backups in the future!

------- Forwarded Message


My name is Bill Sommerfeld; I'm a software engineer employed by, but
by no means speaking for, Hewlett Packard. I can be reached at
1-508-436-4352 or 1-617-396-5661.

	   Unix System Laboratories recently sued software company BSDI
	   and the University of California at Berkeley, charging that 
	   BSDI's commercial Unix workalike and UCB's free software 
	   violated USL's intellectual property rights. Was USL justified
	   in filing the suit?

No.  USL and/or AT&T once ran a service by which universities could
determine whether or not source code was "contaminated" with source
from UNIX; however, they stopped doing this several years ago. 

As a result, persons connected with CSRG made a good faith effort to
separate out the code in BSD not derived from AT&T code, and made it
freely available.  Now, this is an eminently tricky process, so it's
entirely likely that a few files of AT&T code may have slipped through
the cracks and made it into NET/2 (just as AT&T code is occasionally
posted to USENET by accident).  However, instead of filing a lawsuit,
USL should have made specific complaints about specific infringements,
and UCB would most likely have taken prompt, reasonable action to
correct the problems.

------- End Forwarded Message


I'd be surprized if every vendor in the world selling a backup scheme 
doesn't call you to ask if you want to buy the product. :-)

We really can't know until USL reveals more details.  For example,
which lines of source are they talking about?  Until then, everything
is just hype.  Including this.

Tom Limoncelli
Mentor Graphics Corp -- IC Group
System Admin.
(not speaking for my company)
Tom Limoncelli -- (work) -- t...@plts.uucp (play)
"Oh! I thought it was one of those useless demos of everything that
    a GUI builder could do." -Anonymous person watching demo of
         Solaris 2.0's graphical tool for managing NIS+

			        About USENET

USENET (Users’ Network) was a bulletin board shared among many computer
systems around the world. USENET was a logical network, sitting on top
of several physical networks, among them UUCP, BLICN, BERKNET, X.25, and
the ARPANET. Sites on USENET included many universities, private companies
and research organizations. See USENET Archives.

		       SCO Files Lawsuit Against IBM

March 7, 2003 - The SCO Group filed legal action against IBM in the State 
Court of Utah for trade secrets misappropriation, tortious interference, 
unfair competition and breach of contract. The complaint alleges that IBM 
made concentrated efforts to improperly destroy the economic value of 
UNIX, particularly UNIX on Intel, to benefit IBM's Linux services 
business. See SCO v IBM.

The materials and information included in this website may only be used
for purposes such as criticism, review, private study, scholarship, or

Electronic mail:			       WorldWideWeb: