Tech Insider					     Technology and Trends


			      USENET Archives

Path: sparky!uunet!not-for-mail
From: s...@Kithrup.COM (Sean Eric Fagan)
Newsgroups: alt.suit.att-bsdi
Subject: New USL v. BSDI papers on uunet
Date: 3 Mar 1993 19:55:18 -0800
Organization: Kithrup Enterprises, Ltd.
Lines: 5
Sender: s...@ftp.UU.NET
Message-ID: <1n3uj6INNhh2@ftp.UU.NET>
NNTP-Posting-Host: ftp.uu.net

A few new files have appeared on ftp.uu.net:~ftp/vendor/bsdi/bsdi-info/usl.
So far, they're pretty interesting.

FYI.

Path: sparky!uunet!uchinews!msuinfo!uwm.edu!zaphod.mps.ohio-state.edu!
howland.reston.ans.net!agate!cogsci.Berkeley.EDU!muir
From: David Muir Sharnoff <m...@idiom.berkeley.ca.us>
Newsgroups: alt.suit.att-bsdi
Subject: Re: New USL v. BSDI papers on uunet
Date: 5 Mar 1993 07:55:01 GMT
Organization: University of California, Berkeley
Lines: 47
Message-ID: <1n710l$1ue@agate.berkeley.edu>
References: <1n3uj6INNhh2@ftp.UU.NET>
NNTP-Posting-Host: cogsci.berkeley.edu
Originator: m...@cogsci.Berkeley.EDU

In article <1n3uj6INN...@ftp.UU.NET> s...@Kithrup.COM (Sean Eric Fagan) writes:
>A few new files have appeared on ftp.uu.net:~ftp/vendor/bsdi/bsdi-info/usl.
>So far, they're pretty interesting.


Wow!  Real information.  

Too much actually, it took me 'till 4:30am last night to read them. 

I now understand whey the judge can easily take a month to rule on 
something like this.  It took me hours to read what is in the archive and
what is in the archive appears to be only about 30% of the filings.
Reading them more seriously would take ten times the work because the
references would have to be followed.

So, the real question: is it too soon to be optimistic?  The filings
on behalf of UCB and BSDI seem very compelling.  

Why it seems like I can be optimistic:

	>   Kirk McKusick looked for similarities between Net2 and 32V.
	He found a few.  He didn't find enough to be interesting.

	>   Convincing arguments are made that these similarities are 
	trivial and can not be used to show infringement

	>   Details of the licenses between Berkeley and AT&T are 
	revealed and they clearly state that derrived works belong to
	Berkeley and that trade secrets are not interesting after they
	have been covered in the literature.

	>   The licenses clearly state that the only works that AT&T
	has an interest in are those that contain AT&T code or trade secrets.

	>   And, of course, arguments are made that AT&T doesn't have a 
	copyright on 32V and that there are no trade secrets left.

All this seems to imply that USL doesn't have a prayer of winning the suit.

However, since none of the recent USL filings are availabe, my window
into the workings is somewhat colored.   If USL would allow their 
side to be seen, it would decrease the FUD factor treamendously.  (Of
course, that may be the reason we can't see them...)

It's too soon to celebrate, but is it too soon to stop worrying?

-Dave

Newsgroups: alt.suit.att-bsdi
Path: sparky!uunet!tandem!pacbell.com!rtech!ingres!daveb
From: da...@Ingres.COM (Dave Brower, DBMS hack, [510] 748-3418)
Subject: Re: New USL v. BSDI papers on uunet
Message-ID: <1993Mar5.175835.25678@pony.Ingres.COM>
Originator: daveb@lotus
In-reply-to: David Muir Sharnoff <muir@idiom.berkeley.ca.us>
Reply-To: daveb@lotus (Dave Brower, DBMS hack, [510] 748-3418)
Organization: Ingres, an ASK Company
References: <1n3uj6INNhh2@ftp.UU.NET> <1n710l$1ue@agate.berkeley.edu>
Date: 5 Mar 93 17:58:35 GMT
Lines: 27

In article <1n710l$...@agate.berkeley.edu>, David Muir Sharnoff <muir@idiom writes:
>
>However, since none of the recent USL filings are availabe, my window
>into the workings is somewhat colored.   If USL would allow their 
>side to be seen, it would decrease the FUD factor treamendously.

You can see them.  They were filed with the court.  Just go to the
court and get them.

You can accuse USL of many things, but complaints about secrecy in
their filings are completely misplaced.  They have choosen to put
their case before a judge, not public opinion.  

It was BSDI who transcribed the original complaint documents.  They
have apparently chosen not to do so with the subsequent (presumably
huge) filings.  BSDI also did not include the first McKusick
interview, that seems to have played heavily in the USL response, and
caused the second one that was made available.

There's a lot of selective editing going on.  But to this non-lawyer,
it's looking pretty good for UCB and BSDI right now.

-dB

-- 
"Hey Ren!  How'd you like to try my new invention?"

Path: sparky!uunet!destroyer!gumby!yale!yale.edu!qt.cs.utexas.edu!cs.utexas.edu!
usc!howland.reston.ans.net!agate!toe.CS.Berkeley.EDU!bostic
From: bos...@toe.CS.Berkeley.EDU (Keith Bostic)
Newsgroups: alt.suit.att-bsdi
Subject: Re: New USL v. BSDI papers on uunet
Date: 5 Mar 1993 22:46:27 GMT
Organization: University of California, Berkeley
Lines: 30
Message-ID: <1n8l83$e7s@agate.berkeley.edu>
References: <1n3uj6INNhh2@ftp.UU.NET> <1n710l$1ue@agate.berkeley.edu> 
<1993Mar5.175835.25678@pony.Ingres.COM>
NNTP-Posting-Host: toe.cs.berkeley.edu

In article <1993Mar5.175835.25...@pony.Ingres.COM> daveb@lotus 
(Dave Brower, DBMS hack, [510] 748-3418) writes:
>In article <1n710l$...@agate.berkeley.edu>, David Muir Sharnoff <muir@idiom writes:
>>
>>However, since none of the recent USL filings are availabe, my window
>>into the workings is somewhat colored.   If USL would allow their 
>>side to be seen, it would decrease the FUD factor treamendously.
>
>You can see them.  They were filed with the court.  Just go to the
>court and get them.
>
>You can accuse USL of many things, but complaints about secrecy in
>their filings are completely misplaced.  They have choosen to put
>their case before a judge, not public opinion.  

This is not correct.  Most, if not all, of USL's filings were "under seal"
and are not available to the general public, or even to the organization
being sued.  I've heard that this is a standard legal tactic, forcing the
target organization to hire and educate outside experts instead of using
their own, already knowledgeable, staff.

>BSDI also did not include the first McKusick
>interview, that seems to have played heavily in the USL response, and
>caused the second one that was made available.

The first McKusick declaration is also under seal, but only because it
discusses other documents that were already sealed by USL.

Keith Bostic
CSRG

			        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/