Tech Insider					     Technology and Trends


			      USENET Archives

Path: sparky!uunet!seismo!ukma!cs.widener.edu!eff!world!bzs
From: b...@world.std.com (Barry Shein)
Newsgroups: alt.suit.att-bsdi,comp.org.eff.talk,comp.unix.bsd,comp.unix.wizards,
comp.org.usenix
Subject: BSDI/USL Lawsuit -- More Bad News for Human Beings...
Message-ID: <BZS.93Jan14203519@world.std.com>
Date: 15 Jan 93 01:35:19 GMT
Sender: b...@world.std.com (Barry Shein)
Distribution: alt
Organization: The World
Lines: 43


There has been some speculation as to whether or not USL would try to
extend this suit to control individuals who have ever had access to
the Unix sources.

I think the following quote from their latest legal filing leaves
little doubt that the worst fears have now been confirmed...

	(4) preliminarily enjoining and restraining BSDI, its
	officers, agents, employees, servants, and all persons
	in active concert or participation with them, from
	employing, authorizing or otherwise allowing any person
	who has had access to UNIX operating system source code
	or any works, notes, memoranda, or other records,
	copied from, based upon, or derived from such software,
	disclosed to such person or his employer in confidence,
	to participate on behalf of BSDI in the development of
	source code for a multi-user computer operating system,
	during the pendency of this action;

If anyone thinks USL winning that point would only apply to BSDI
you're, well, deceiving yourself. They could use it against any
software company they like who doesn't have a Unix source license, the
claims on concepts don't even have to be limited to operating systems.

Worse, consider for a moment the climate of fear this would create and
how long before employers will shun anyone who is thought to have had
access to those sources?

Another worrisome aspect is that if USL wins this whole thing it is
not much of a stretch to consider exposure to anything based on Net2
(e.g. Jolix, BSD386, 386BSD, whatever) to qualify a person as being
irredeemably contaminated.

If there's a better explanation for this behavior by USL I think it's
high time USL made it be known. It looks pretty much cut and dry to
me, from that text.

-- 
        -Barry Shein

Software Tool & Die    | b...@world.std.com          | uunet!world!bzs
Purveyors to the Trade | Voice: 617-739-0202        | Login: 617-739-WRLD

Path: sparky!uunet!think.com!paperboy.osf.org!hsdndev!news.cs.umb.edu!betsys
From: bet...@cs.umb.edu (Elizabeth Schwartz)
Newsgroups: alt.suit.att-bsdi,comp.org.eff.talk,comp.unix.bsd,comp.unix.wizards,
comp.org.usenix
Subject: Re: BSDI/USL Lawsuit -- More Bad News for Human Beings...
Message-ID: <BETSYS.93Jan15143516@ra.cs.umb.edu>
Date: 15 Jan 93 19:35:16 GMT
References: <BZS.93Jan14203519@world.std.com>
Sender: n...@cs.umb.edu (USENET News System)
Distribution: alt
Organization: University of Massachusetts at Boston
Lines: 40
In-Reply-To: bzs@world.std.com's message of 15 Jan 93 01: 35:19 GMT
Nntp-Posting-Host: ra.cs.umb.edu

In article <BZS.93Jan14203...@world.std.com> b...@world.std.com (Barry Shein) writes:

>There has been some speculation as to whether or not USL would try to
>extend this suit to control individuals who have ever had access to
>the Unix sources.

>I think the following quote from their latest legal filing leaves
>little doubt that the worst fears have now been confirmed...

	   (4) preliminarily enjoining and restraining BSDI, its
	   officers, agents, employees, servants, and all persons
	   in active concert or participation with them, from
	   employing, authorizing or otherwise allowing any person
	   who has had access to UNIX operating system source code
	   or any works, notes, memoranda, or other records,
	   copied from, based upon, or derived from such software,
	   disclosed to such person or his employer in confidence,
	   to participate on behalf of BSDI in the development of
	   source code for a multi-user computer operating system,
	   during the pendency of this action;

Good Grief! What is this, exactly, a request for a legal action?
Our university has source access for (old versions of) AT&T Unix. Does
that mean that none of our students can ever work for any Unix
company?

This is unreal. What's next, no-one who's ever been in an AT&T
building can enter an AT&T building? <no smiley>

I understand that software *developers* can be asked to not go do the
same work for another company within a time limit (not sure if I agree
with it but I understand it) but this doesn't even limit itself to
people who have USED the sources.


--
System Administrator                  Internet: bet...@cs.umb.edu
MACS Dept, UMass/Boston               Phone   : 617-287-6448
100 Morrissey Blvd                    Staccato signals
Boston, MA 02125-3393                      of constant information....

Path: sparky!uunet!not-for-mail
From: s...@Kithrup.COM (Sean Eric Fagan)
Newsgroups: alt.suit.att-bsdi,comp.org.eff.talk,comp.unix.bsd,comp.unix.wizards,
comp.org.usenix
Subject: Re: BSDI/USL Lawsuit -- More Bad News for Human Beings...
Date: 15 Jan 1993 14:51:39 -0800
Organization: Kithrup Enterprises, Ltd.
Lines: 32
Sender: s...@ftp.UU.NET
Distribution: inet
Message-ID: <1j7f5rINNqvn@ftp.UU.NET>
References: <BZS.93Jan14203519@world.std.com> <BETSYS.93Jan15143516@ra.cs.umb.edu>
NNTP-Posting-Host: ftp.uu.net

In article <BETSYS.93Jan15143...@ra.cs.umb.edu> bet...@cs.umb.edu (Elizabeth Schwartz) 
writes:
>(4) preliminarily enjoining and restraining BSDI, its
>officers, agents, employees, servants, and all persons
>in active concert or participation with them, from
>employing, authorizing or otherwise allowing any person
>who has had access to UNIX operating system source code
>or any works, notes, memoranda, or other records,
>copied from, based upon, or derived from such software,
>disclosed to such person or his employer in confidence,
>to participate on behalf of BSDI in the development of
>source code for a multi-user computer operating system,
>during the pendency of this action;

The fun part about that, which I don't know how many people have
recognized or admitted, is that the Bach abd BSD books fall under
the category of "works, noted, memoranda" "copied from, based upon,
or derived from" the USL code.

In other words:  BSDI would be prevented from hiring anyone who has
read one of the two most popular books for operating system classes!

And, of course, "persons in active concert or participation with" BSDI
also happens to include their customers.

(In all honesty, I don't think it's likely for USL to get that
injunction, and I have been told it's common practice to "shoot
for the moon," expecting to get less.  Nonetheless... scary, ain't it?)

Ya' know... UseNIX is coming up.  I kinda feel sorry for any USL people
who might be coming.  They're probably going to get a whole lot of unwanted
(and probably undeserved) attention.

Path: sparky!uunet!usc!rpi!utcsri!relay.cs.toronto.edu!smoke.cs.toronto.edu!
cs.toronto.edu!tg
Newsgroups: comp.unix.wizards,comp.org.eff.talk,comp.org.usenix,comp.unix.bsd,
alt.suit.att-bsdi
From: t...@cs.toronto.edu (Tom Glinos)
Subject: Re: BSDI/USL Lawsuit -- More Bad News for Human Beings...
Message-ID: <93Jan15.211025edt.1578@smoke.cs.toronto.edu>
Organization: Department of Computer Science, University of Toronto
References: <BZS.93Jan14203519@world.std.com> <BETSYS.93Jan15143516@ra.cs.umb.edu> 
<1j7f5rINNqvn@ftp.UU.NET>
Distribution: inet
Date: 16 Jan 93 02:10:51 GMT
Lines: 12

In article <1j7f5rINN...@ftp.UU.NET> s...@Kithrup.COM (Sean Eric Fagan) writes:
>Ya' know... UseNIX is coming up.  I kinda feel sorry for any USL people
>who might be coming.  They're probably going to get a whole lot of unwanted
>(and probably undeserved) attention.

I think it would be a great idea if USL people showed up.
This way, we could tell them, in person, what we think.
That's what USENIX is all about!
-- 
=================
No regrets, ever!			| Tom Glinos @ U of Toronto Statistics
For down that path, lies madness	| t...@utstat.toronto.edu

Newsgroups: comp.org.eff.talk,comp.unix.bsd,comp.unix.wizards,comp.org.usenix
Path: sparky!uunet!cs.utexas.edu!asuvax!ncar!csn!teal.csn.org!dfishman
From: dfish...@teal.csn.org (Dan Fishman)
Subject: Re: BSDI/USL Lawsuit -- More Bad News for Human Beings...
Message-ID: <C0yK27.9Ly@csn.org>
Sender: n...@csn.org (news)
Nntp-Posting-Host: teal.csn.org
Organization: Colorado SuperNet, Inc.
X-Newsreader: Tin 1.1 PL4
References: <1993Jan16.165710.7389@eecs.nwu.edu>
Date: Sat, 16 Jan 1993 17:46:49 GMT
Lines: 41

A comment from the silent majority...  There seems to be an assumption that
the UNIX community (users, programmers and gurus are included I presume)
speaks with one mind with respect to legal and intellectual property issue;
that of the vocal minority in this and other news groups.  They do not!

Though I haven't the data to prove it, the UNIX community is much broader 
than the gurus who attend USENIX and balk at any and every legal action 
relating to UNIX or even the software industry in general.  There are many
of us who give due respect to those in the industry who choose to advance
the art by offering their services free of charge (or at least profit). 
Thank you Jolitz's, Stallman, Amancio et al... GNU amd 386BSD are doing a
great job at moving the software field ahead.  Berkeley and other academic
institutions are doing their part as well supported by tax dollars and
tuition.

But I also pay due respect to USL, Novell, IBM, Microsoft, HP, DEC,
and yes even the Apples of the industry for advancing the art of software
based on profit motives and the associated use of intellectual property
protection.  Let's give credit where credit is due!  This does not mean I
support everything such massive companies may do in in the name of IP
law enforcement, but I do not share the paranoia expressed by many readers
of this and other groups that the sky will fall if USL moves this way or that.

Some of you are kidding yourselves to think that the legal system always crushes
the little guy.  These huge corps are scared shitless of the little guy with
a good legal claim against them.  Certainly there are problems with our legal 
system not only in terms relating to the software biz, but everywhere.  Work
to correct those problems, don't toss the baby with the bathwater.

There may in fact be some of you out there that may be directly affected
by a USL victory (if it ever happens), but the industry as a whole will march
ahead without noticing the outcome.

My (long-windded) point is simply that too many of you are assuming that
the UNIX community (or software community more generally) supports your 
every claim that our business is unique and must be saved from the wolves
at the door (IBM, USL...).  WE DO NOT!  There are those of us who see no
problems in commercial expolitation of protected expressions and ideas, in
fact, some of us even make a living doing so... it called programming too!

Dan Fishman (dfish...@csn.org)

Path: sparky!uunet!cs.utexas.edu!asuvax!chnews!sedona!bhoughto
From: bhoug...@sedona.intel.com (Blair P. Houghton)
Newsgroups: comp.org.eff.talk,comp.unix.bsd,comp.unix.wizards,comp.org.usenix
Subject: Re: BSDI/USL Lawsuit -- More Bad News for Human Beings...
Date: 16 Jan 1993 23:39:28 GMT
Organization: Intel Corp., Chandler, Arizona
Lines: 11
Distribution: inet
Message-ID: <1ja6bgINNh23@chnews.intel.com>
References: <1993Jan16.165710.7389@eecs.nwu.edu> <C0yK27.9Ly@csn.org>
NNTP-Posting-Host: nasdaq.intel.com

In article <C0yK27....@csn.org> dfish...@teal.csn.org (Dan Fishman) writes:
>There are those of us who see no
>problems in commercial expolitation of protected expressions and ideas, in
>fact, some of us even make a living doing so... it called programming too!

Much as I loathe sycophancy, especially my own, I need to
mention that this was a very apt expression of my own
opinion on the matter.

				--Blair
				  "Author!  Author!"

Path: sparky!uunet!spool.mu.edu!hri.com!enterpoop.mit.edu!world!bzs
From: b...@world.std.com (Barry Shein)
Newsgroups: comp.org.eff.talk,comp.unix.bsd,comp.unix.wizards,comp.org.usenix
Subject: Re: BSDI/USL Lawsuit -- More Bad News for Human Beings...
Message-ID: <BZS.93Jan16205935@world.std.com>
Date: 17 Jan 93 01:59:35 GMT
References: <1993Jan16.165710.7389@eecs.nwu.edu> <C0yK27.9Ly@csn.org>
	<1ja6bgINNh23@chnews.intel.com>
Sender: b...@world.std.com (Barry Shein)
Distribution: inet
Organization: The World
Lines: 85
In-Reply-To: bhoughto@sedona.intel.com's message of 16 Jan 1993 23:39:28 GMT


First: A Disclaimer...

    Although this note appears on comp.org.usenix (and other groups) and
    noting that I am on the Board of Directors of Usenix, this note is
    not to be construed as expressing the official position of Usenix nor
    their Board of Directors.

From: bhoug...@sedona.intel.com (Blair P. Houghton)
>In article <C0yK27....@csn.org> dfish...@teal.csn.org (Dan Fishman) writes:
>>There are those of us who see no
>>problems in commercial expolitation of protected expressions and ideas, in
>>fact, some of us even make a living doing so... it called programming too!
>
>Much as I loathe sycophancy, especially my own, I need to
>mention that this was a very apt expression of my own
>opinion on the matter.

The issue vis a vis the USL/BSDI suit isn't much about whether or not
copyright protections (etc) are appropriate on software. That's a red
herring interpretation. BSDI certainly claims copyrights on their own
work and expects them to be honored.

The issue is, among other things, whether anyone can really be made to
believe that what occurred over a period of approximately 14 years at
UCB/CSRG by their highly esteemed staff and by hundreds of members of
the software community at large can really be construed as "copying"?

One would think that "copying", at the very least, implies some sort
of unfair short cut.

Put another way, was the purpose of the Copyright law and its
extension to software over the years to stop what CSRG actually did?

Or is USL stretching a point beyond any rational limit and in fact
there was no copying as protected under that law (if that law is even
appropriate)?

Further, the license at issue is Unix/32V* and whether or not there is
copyright protection for that version remains an issue.

USL clearly claims there is a legitimate copyright for 32V in their
complaints. What's at issue is whether or not this copyright was first
claimed many years after the software was distributed, and whether or
not the reason that AT&T did not claim copyright for 32V at the time
was at least in part due to their being forbidden from entering the
software business as part of their monopoly agreement with the United
States of America, or perhaps because they purposely did not copyright
it for other strategic reasons (which perhaps now they regret)?

Although there may well be nit-picky fine points regarding the line
between minor "copying" and mere "compatability" (e.g. #define'd
symbols which are the same, should they have renamed BUFSIZ or
whatever?), one would hope that there is something more substantive to
USL's claims to drag others into such a knock-down, drag-out fight.

Let's get down to the point: Did CSRG or did CSRG not create a work of
significant new creative content (in Net/2) to merit its being
considered a wholely new and unique work under the copyright law?
That's the issue under the law, not whether or not they both used a
1-4-5 chord progression or both had the words "baby, oh baby"
somewhere in the chorus.

So, although the issue of copyright does indeed come up in the
complaints filed by USL, the issue is not whether or not copyrights
are valid in general, but whether or not A) USL's specific claim of
copyright on 32V is valid and B) Even if the copyright is valid was
anything material actually copied (put more simply: was the Copyright
Law violated)?



* 32V was a minor release of Unix around 1979 which provided a partial
port of Unix Version 7 to the then new DEC/Vax hardware. This is the
last source license and version Berkeley (UCB/CSRG) signed and
acquired from AT&T. 32V, among other things, did not use the virtual
memory features of the Vax. The first release to do so came from
Berkeley/CSRG. AT&T entered the software business with Unix, after
Judge Green cleared it, around 1982.

-- 
        -Barry Shein

Software Tool & Die    | b...@world.std.com          | uunet!world!bzs
Purveyors to the Trade | Voice: 617-739-0202        | Login: 617-739-WRLD

Path: sparky!uunet!cs.utexas.edu!asuvax!chnews!sedona!bhoughto
From: bhoug...@sedona.intel.com (Blair P. Houghton)
Newsgroups: comp.org.eff.talk,comp.unix.bsd,comp.unix.wizards,comp.org.usenix
Subject: Re: BSDI/USL Lawsuit -- More Bad News for Human Beings...
Date: 18 Jan 1993 02:00:39 GMT
Organization: Intel Corp., Chandler, Arizona
Lines: 102
Distribution: inet
Message-ID: <1jd307INNlf6@chnews.intel.com>
References: <C0yK27.9Ly@csn.org> <1ja6bgINNh23@chnews.intel.com> 
<BZS.93Jan16205935@world.std.com>
NNTP-Posting-Host: nasdaq.intel.com

In article <BZS.93Jan16205...@world.std.com> b...@world.std.com (Barry Shein) writes:
>The issue is, among other things, whether anyone can really be made to
>believe that what occurred over a period of approximately 14 years at
>UCB/CSRG by their highly esteemed staff and by hundreds of members of
>the software community at large can really be construed as "copying"?

Well, Mr. Chairman-disclaimed, you're pretty much hitting
the nail right on the head, here.

The fact appears to be that this puppy is in court until it
isn't, and until then we're ranting around in a colorfully
speculatory manner.  (But I certainly won't stop MYself;
it's too much fun. :-))

>Further, the license at issue is Unix/32V* and whether or not there is
>copyright protection for that version remains an issue.
>
>USL clearly claims there is a legitimate copyright for 32V in their
>complaints. What's at issue is whether or not this copyright was first
>claimed many years after the software was distributed, and whether or

I'd find it hard to believe that copyright bugs weren't
apparent in every element of the packaging and installed
files of 32V when the license for it was signed; if they
weren't then AT&T's lawyers probably have some excruciating
explaining to do to the shareholders.

I'm all for intellectual property, but not if the lawyers
are going to screw it up and let the recipients think they
have privileges they don't really have.

>not the reason that AT&T did not claim copyright for 32V at the time
>was at least in part due to their being forbidden from entering the
>software business as part of their monopoly agreement with the United
>States of America, or perhaps because they purposely did not copyright
>it for other strategic reasons (which perhaps now they regret)?

If they were forbidden by the USA, then they couldn't have
"owned" it for the purpose of controlling it and certainly
not for the purpose of profiting from it.

I'm all for intellectual property, but not for monopolism
(damn; now *I* gotta disclaim...  This posting is my
opinion and not necessarily that of my employer or the
United States Golf Association (I'm wearing my '92 Pebble
Beach US Open sweatshirt as I type...)).

>Although there may well be nit-picky fine points regarding the line
>between minor "copying" and mere "compatability" (e.g. #define'd
>symbols which are the same, should they have renamed BUFSIZ or
>whatever?), one would hope that there is something more substantive to
>USL's claims to drag others into such a knock-down, drag-out fight.

THEY'LL NEVER GET THE SETUID-BIT!!! NEVER!!!

(They can't.  It's PD.  Thanks, Dennis. :-))

>Let's get down to the point: Did CSRG or did CSRG not create a work of
>significant new creative content (in Net/2) to merit its being
>considered a wholely new and unique work under the copyright law?

Wholly new?  I don't think so, and I'd bet real money that
a court of law won't think so, either.

Significantly new enough that USL can't forbid its
release?  There's a slim possibility of this but it's not
likely.

Just derivative enough that USL can be awarded some portion
of the revenues generated?  Almost certainly.  This is how
much intellectual property ends up; cross-licensed in a
fine mesh of gross percentages and licensing fees.
Otherwise, incremental improvements are forbidden and don't
appear (and often they don't, for just that reason, and
the original owner ends up way out of business because
very little is marketable in the first rev).

>That's the issue under the law, not whether or not they both used a
>1-4-5 chord progression or both had the words "baby, oh baby"
>somewhere in the chorus.

There's another issue:  didn't AT&T intend for UNIX to be
propagated openly in this way?  If not, then howcome AT&T's
lawyers didn't react negatively when CSRG indicated that
this was their intent?  If CSRG didn't indicate this was
their intent and AT&T didn't indicate that it was okay,
then how did they form the attitude that they could
redistribute AT&T's intellectual property?

>So, although the issue of copyright does indeed come up in the
>complaints filed by USL, the issue is not whether or not copyrights
>are valid in general, but whether or not A) USL's specific claim of
>copyright on 32V is valid and B) Even if the copyright is valid was
>anything material actually copied (put more simply: was the Copyright
>Law violated)?

And C) Did this copying somehow violate the terms of the
original license?

				--Blair
				  "Anybody got a lawyer?---YIPE!!
				   I can't believe I said that..."

Path: sparky!uunet!elroy.jpl.nasa.gov!decwrl!pa.dec.com!weir.pa.dec.com!ed
From: e...@weir.pa.dec.com (Ed Gould)
Newsgroups: comp.org.eff.talk,comp.unix.bsd,comp.unix.wizards,comp.org.usenix
Subject: Re: BSDI/USL Lawsuit -- More Bad News for Human Beings...
Date: 18 Jan 1993 06:22:47 GMT
Organization: DEC Network Systems Lab, Palo Alto
Lines: 73
Distribution: inet
Message-ID: <1jdibnINN52u@usenet.pa.dec.com>
References: <1jd307INNlf6@chnews.intel.com> <C0yK27.9Ly@csn.org> 
<1ja6bgINNh23@chnews.intel.com> <BZS.93Jan16205935@world.std.com>
Reply-To: e...@pa.dec.com
NNTP-Posting-Host: weir.pa.dec.com

[Houghton]
> I'd find it hard to believe that copyright bugs weren't
> apparent in every element of the packaging and installed
> files of 32V when the license for it was signed; if they
> weren't then AT&T's lawyers probably have some excruciating
> explaining to do to the shareholders.

[Shein]
>> or perhaps because they purposely did not copyright
>> it for other strategic reasons (which perhaps now they regret)?

The copyright notices were *removed* from a previous version (I no
longer remember just which, but I expect it was 5th Edition) before it
was released outside AT&T.  This removal was at the explicit direction
of the lawyers, who, at the time, believed that under then-current
copyrught law they could not claim both copyright protection *and*
trade secret protection for the work.  At the time, they wanted to
protect UNIX as their trade secret.

Whether the 32/V release is protected by copyright is one of the
primary issues in the case.  As I understand things, it hinges on the
technical definition of "publication."  USL claims that 32/V (and
other systems that they released at that time) were not published
works, hence they were not covered by the copyright law at the time.
This is particularly important, because the law then said that, in
order to claim copyright, the work must be marked as copyrighted.
Current law does not have this requirement; USL has recently (since
the bringing of the suit against BSDI) filed a copyright registration
for 32/V.

> I'm all for intellectual property, but ...

Could you be clear about what you mean by "intellectual property?"  I
suspect you have an understanding of the concept that is different
from the legal meaning.

> THEY'LL NEVER GET THE SETUID-BIT!!! NEVER!!!
> 
> (They can't.  It's PD.  Thanks, Dennis. :-))

If by "PD" you mean "Public Domain," then no, it's not.  The set-uid
bit is protected by a United States patent.  It happens that the owner
of the patent (AT&T, not DMR, for all practical purposes), has decided
to "let" the patent, which means, effectively, that they grant a
royalty-free license, without application, to anyone who chooses to
use it.

"Public Domain" is probably the most mis-used phrase on the net.
Nearly nothing whose author is still alive is legally in the public
domain.  This doesn't mean that there aren't things that are freely
distributable, but that's not a synonem for public domain.

> And C) Did this copying somehow violate the terms of the
> original license?

The "original license" protected UNIX solely on trade secret grounds.
I have heard tell of a legal analysis (but never talked to any of the
lawyers who did the analysis) that described the trade secret status
of UNIX thusly.  IF the case were ever to go to court, the defense
would call as witness, someone from the plaintiff (USL, perhaps, in
this case) and ask, "How many people, outside your organization, know
this `secret'?"  The answer would be something like, "Oh, maybe
100,000 or so."  IF that weren't sufficient for the judge to throw out
the claim of a secret, the second question would be, "What secrets
remain after the publication of Bach's book, the publication of which
was approved by you?"  The only truthful answer to this question is,
"None."

--
Ed Gould	  e...@pa.dec.com		Digital Equipment Corporation
+1 415 688 1309	  Network Systems Lab	181 Lytton Ave, Palo Alto, CA  94301

"Unison is only one form of harmony." -- LW

Path: sparky!uunet!cs.utexas.edu!asuvax!chnews!sedona!bhoughto
From: bhoug...@sedona.intel.com (Blair P. Houghton)
Newsgroups: comp.org.eff.talk,comp.unix.bsd,comp.unix.wizards,comp.org.usenix
Subject: Re: BSDI/USL Lawsuit -- More Bad News for Human Beings...
Date: 19 Jan 1993 03:48:15 GMT
Organization: Intel Corp., Chandler, Arizona
Lines: 43
Distribution: inet
Message-ID: <1jftlvINNq62@chnews.intel.com>
References: <1ja6bgINNh23@chnews.intel.com> <BZS.93Jan16205935@world.std.com> 
<1jdibnINN52u@usenet.pa.dec.com>
NNTP-Posting-Host: nasdaq.intel.com

In article <1jdibnINN...@usenet.pa.dec.com> e...@pa.dec.com writes:
>[Houghton]
>> I'm all for intellectual property, but ...
>
>Could you be clear about what you mean by "intellectual property?"  I
>suspect you have an understanding of the concept that is different
>from the legal meaning.

The legal meaning has something to do with intangible
assets accounting; "intellectual property" isn't a thing
unto the law so much as a collection of things the free
dissemination of which one has a vested interest in
preventing.  Patents and Copyrights are the usual
protected elements of intellectual property.

[HAY!  I answered the question.  Where's my lollipop?  Chiseler.]

>> THEY'LL NEVER GET THE SETUID-BIT!!! NEVER!!!
>> (They can't.  It's PD.  Thanks, Dennis. :-))
>
>If by "PD" you mean "Public Domain," then no, it's not.  The set-uid

Yes, it is.  Ritchie placed it there, after the patent was
granted.  Or so goes the version of the story I've seen:
somewhere there's a copy of the patent documents with his
signature and the handwritten statement "placed in the
public domain, <date>".

...I just checked Bach, Leffler, and the Jargon file;
Thompson&Pike of course has the footnote, but it doesn't
mention the PD-ness; I must've seen it in a Usenet posting;
that's sort of like hearsay evidence from Richard Nixon...

>bit is protected by a United States patent.  It happens that the owner
>of the patent (AT&T, not DMR, for all practical purposes), has decided
>to "let" the patent, which means, effectively, that they grant a

And I heard it was Ritchie's, not AT&T's (as long
as we're being fast and loose).

				--Blair
				  "I meant 'Positively Darling.'
				   What did you think I meant?"

Newsgroups: comp.org.eff.talk,comp.unix.bsd,comp.unix.wizards,comp.org.usenix
Path: sparky!uunet!paladin.american.edu!darwin.sura.net!news.Vanderbilt.Edu!
vuse.vanderbilt.edu!drl
From: d...@vuse.vanderbilt.edu (David R. Linn)
Subject: Re: BSDI/USL Lawsuit -- More Bad News for Human Beings...
Message-ID: <C13yAn.BC@vuse.vanderbilt.edu>
Sender: n...@vuse.vanderbilt.edu
Nntp-Posting-Host: jester
Organization: Vanderbilt University School of Engineering, Nashville, TN, USA
References: <BZS.93Jan16205935@world.std.com> <1jdibnINN52u@usenet.pa.dec.com> 
<1jftlvINNq62@chnews.intel.com>
Distribution: inet
Date: Tue, 19 Jan 1993 15:42:22 GMT
Lines: 35

In article <1jftlvINN...@chnews.intel.com> bhoug...@sedona.intel.com 
(Blair P. Houghton) writes:
>In article <1jdibnINN...@usenet.pa.dec.com> e...@pa.dec.com writes:
>>[Houghton]
>>> THEY'LL NEVER GET THE SETUID-BIT!!! NEVER!!!
>>> (They can't.  It's PD.  Thanks, Dennis. :-))
>>
>>If by "PD" you mean "Public Domain," then no, it's not.  The set-uid
>
>Yes, it is.  Ritchie placed it there, after the patent was
>granted.  Or so goes the version of the story I've seen:
>somewhere there's a copy of the patent documents with his
>signature and the handwritten statement "placed in the
>public domain, <date>".
>
>>bit is protected by a United States patent.  It happens that the owner
>>of the patent (AT&T, not DMR, for all practical purposes), has decided
>>to "let" the patent, which means, effectively, that they grant a
>
>And I heard it was Ritchie's, not AT&T's (as long
>as we're being fast and loose).

Actually, the adjective used to describe the current status of the
setuid bit is "dedicated".  I spoke to D. Richie about this patent
at the Nashville USENIX and, as I recall, he indicated that the patent
was AT&T's (does Bell Labs retain all patents of its researchers?) and
they were the ones who "dedicated" it to public use.  My purpose in
starting this conversation was to thank him for allowing the public
use of the setuid bit (and, yes, I admit it, so I would have an excuse
for speaking to him).

	 David
-- 
David R. Linn, System/Mail/News Manager	| INET: d...@vuse.vanderbilt.edu
Disclaimer: I speak only for myself	| Phone: [+1] 615-343-6164
      "Some do, some don't and that's the way of the world."

Newsgroups: comp.org.eff.talk,comp.unix.bsd,comp.unix.wizards,comp.org.usenix
Path: sparky!uunet!zaphod.mps.ohio-state.edu!caen!batcomputer!cornell!rochester!
rit!wrc
From: w...@cs.rit.edu (Warren R Carithers)
Subject: Re: BSDI/USL Lawsuit -- More Bad News for Human Beings...
Message-ID: <1993Jan19.215612.3662@cs.rit.edu>
Sender: n...@cs.rit.edu
Nntp-Posting-Host: vienna
Organization: Rochester Institute of Technology, Rochester, NY
References: <1ja6bgINNh23@chnews.intel.com> <BZS.93Jan16205935@world.std.com> 
<1jdibnINN52u@usenet.pa.dec.com> <1jftlvINNq62@chnews.intel.com>
Distribution: inet
Date: Tue, 19 Jan 1993 21:56:12 GMT
Lines: 35

In article <1jftlvINN...@chnews.intel.com>, bhoug...@sedona.intel.com 
(Blair P. Houghton) writes:
|> In article <1jdibnINN...@usenet.pa.dec.com> e...@pa.dec.com writes:
|> >[Houghton]
|> >> THEY'LL NEVER GET THE SETUID-BIT!!! NEVER!!!
|> >> (They can't.  It's PD.  Thanks, Dennis. :-))
|> >
|> >If by "PD" you mean "Public Domain," then no, it's not.  The set-uid
|> 
|> Yes, it is.  Ritchie placed it there, after the patent was
|> granted.  Or so goes the version of the story I've seen:
|> somewhere there's a copy of the patent documents with his
|> signature and the handwritten statement "placed in the
|> public domain, <date>".
|> 
|> ...I just checked Bach, Leffler, and the Jargon file;
|> Thompson&Pike of course has the footnote, but it doesn't
|> mention the PD-ness; I must've seen it in a Usenet posting;
|> that's sort of like hearsay evidence from Richard Nixon...

For those who have the urge to check it out, a copy of the patent can be 
found in Wood and Kochan, "UNIX System Security", Copyright 1985 by Pipeline
Associates Inc., printed by Hayden books.  It's in Appendix L, pp. 268-275;
on page 275 is reproduced the handwritten

	"Dedicated to the public
		11/28/79
		991 OG 11"

(crudely reproduced here).  It makes rather interesting reading, especially
if you've never seen a patent document before.

-- 
Warren R. Carithers, RIT Department of Computer Science, Rochester NY 14623-0887
Internet:  w...@cs.rit.edu, wrc...@ultb.isc.rit.edu	(716) 475-2288
UUCP:	   {allegra,rutgers}!rochester!rit!wrc      FAX (716) 475-7100

Path: sparky!uunet!cs.utexas.edu!asuvax!chnews!sedona!bhoughto
From: bhoug...@sedona.intel.com (Blair P. Houghton)
Newsgroups: comp.org.eff.talk,comp.unix.bsd,comp.unix.wizards,comp.org.usenix
Subject: Re: BSDI/USL Lawsuit -- More Bad News for Human Beings...
Date: 19 Jan 1993 22:15:00 GMT
Organization: Intel Corp., Chandler, Arizona
Lines: 29
Distribution: inet
Message-ID: <1jhuh4INNopg@chnews.intel.com>
References: <1jdibnINN52u@usenet.pa.dec.com> <1jftlvINNq62@chnews.intel.com> 
<C13yAn.BC@vuse.vanderbilt.edu>
NNTP-Posting-Host: nasdaq.intel.com

In article <C13yAn...@vuse.vanderbilt.edu> d...@vuse.vanderbilt.edu (David R. Linn) 
writes:
>In article <1jftlvINN...@chnews.intel.com> bhoug...@sedona.intel.com (Blair P. Houghton) 
>writes:
>>Yes, it is.  Ritchie placed it there [in the PD], after the patent was
[...]
>>And I heard it was Ritchie's, not AT&T's (as long
>>as we're being fast and loose).

Ritchie sent me email today with these same corrections
to my statements, so now we know:

>Actually, the adjective [...] is "dedicated".
>I asked D. Richie about this [and] he indicated that the patent
>was AT&T's (does Bell Labs retain all patents of its researchers?)

Sounds typical.  I considered the myth that it was all-his
an indication of the esteem they'd have had for him, since
corporations almost never do such a thing.  Apparently,
they really never do such a thing.  Why they "dedicated"
it remains a mystery.

(And, in perfect Freudian style, I saved Dennis' message to
~/mfold/unix and promptly deleted that exact folder while
trying to rm the typo-named ~/mfold/uix and ~/mfold/unid...
I couldn't wait until tomorrow, when today's files would
have been on a backup tape, could I...I think I'll go soak
my head in a bucket of hexafluoric acid for a while...)

				--Blair
				  "rm -rf $HOME/brains/*"

Path: sparky!uunet!haven.umd.edu!umd5!roissy.umd.edu!mark
From: m...@roissy.umd.edu (Mark Sienkiewicz)
Newsgroups: comp.unix.wizards,comp.unix.bsd,alt.suit.att-bsdi
Subject: Re: BSDI/USL Lawsuit -- More Bad News for Human Beings...
Message-ID: <18102@umd5.umd.edu>
Date: 22 Jan 93 23:26:07 GMT
References: <1j7f5rINNqvn@ftp.UU.NET> <93Jan15.211025edt.1578@smoke.cs.toronto.edu> 
<1993Jan17.203539.6063@s4mjs.uucp>
Sender: n...@umd5.umd.edu
Organization: University of Maryland
Lines: 23

>] I think it would be a great idea if USL people showed up.
>] This way, we could tell them, in person, what we think.
>] That's what USENIX is all about!
>
>Look, I'm not fond of what USL is doing *as* *a* *corporate* *body*, but
>I like a lot of the things the folks in the trenches have done.  Do you
>seriously want to be abused because of the corporate policies of *your*
>employer?

It _is_ an opportunity to talk to USL people.  It should _not_ be looked
at as an occasion to yell and scream at them.

If 50 people a day come to their booth and say "The USL suit against BSDI
is making you look _really_ _bad_", that will get noticed.  If you staff
a booth at a trade show, its your _job_ to tell your employer when people
are saying stuff like that.

But resist the urge to say "You're all a bunch of a*******!!!"  The people
you talk to didn't cause this and don't deserve to take the heat for it.

Be nice and you might get your point across.  Be nasty and you just turn 
them against you.

Newsgroups: comp.unix.wizards,comp.unix.bsd,alt.suit.att-bsdi
Path: sparky!uunet!gumby!yale!spock!lancelot
From: lance...@spock.uucp (Thor Lancelot Simon)
Subject: Re: BSDI/USL Lawsuit -- More Bad News for Human Beings...
Message-ID: <1993Jan26.215708.13365@choate.edu>
Sender: use...@choate.edu (Usenet posting daemon)
Nntp-Posting-Host: rattle
Organization: Choate Rosemary Hall
References: <93Jan15.211025edt.1578@smoke.cs.toronto.edu> 
<1993Jan17.203539.6063@s4mjs.uucp> <18102@umd5.umd.edu>
Date: Tue, 26 Jan 1993 21:57:08 GMT
Lines: 33

In article <18...@umd5.umd.edu> m...@roissy.umd.edu (Mark Sienkiewicz) writes:
>>] I think it would be a great idea if USL people showed up.
>>] This way, we could tell them, in person, what we think.
>>] That's what USENIX is all about!
>>
>>Look, I'm not fond of what USL is doing *as* *a* *corporate* *body*, but
>>I like a lot of the things the folks in the trenches have done.  Do you
>>seriously want to be abused because of the corporate policies of *your*
>>employer?
>
>It _is_ an opportunity to talk to USL people.  It should _not_ be looked
>at as an occasion to yell and scream at them.
>
>If 50 people a day come to their booth and say "The USL suit against BSDI
>is making you look _really_ _bad_", that will get noticed.  If you staff
>a booth at a trade show, its your _job_ to tell your employer when people
>are saying stuff like that.
>
>But resist the urge to say "You're all a bunch of as******!!!"  The people
>you talk to didn't cause this and don't deserve to take the heat for it.
>
>Be nice and you might get your point across.  Be nasty and you just turn 
>them against you.

It is a shame nobody thought to organize pickets.  That might be the right
blend of nice and nasty for the occasion.
-- 
*******************************************************************************
*Thor Simon             * Okay, just a little pin-prick...There'll be no more-*
*...@panix.COM          * Aieeeeaaaugh!-but you may feel a little _sick_.     *
*...@spock.UUCP         *   ---Pink Floyd                                     *
*******************************************************************************

			        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
research.

Electronic mail:			       WorldWideWeb:
   tech-insider@outlook.com			  http://tech-insider.org/