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