From: olsen@athena.mit.edu (James J Olsen) Newsgroups: alt.suit.att-bsdi Subject: Judge's decision is on uunet Date: 11 Mar 1993 15:10:11 GMT Organization: Massachusetts Institute of Technology Lines: 6 Message-ID: <1nnkojINNpba@senator-bedfellow.MIT.EDU> NNTP-Posting-Host: pesto.mit.edu Hot off the virtual press, the judge's decision in the USL-BSDI case is now available in ftp.uu.net:~ftp/vendor/bsdi/bsdi-info/usl/930303.ruling -- Jim Olsen -- olsen@mit.edu From: brian@ucsd.edu (Brian Kantor) Newsgroups: alt.suit.att-bsdi Subject: Re: Judge's decision is on uunet Date: 11 Mar 1993 22:24:59 GMT Organization: The Avant-Garde of the Now, Ltd. Lines: 10 Message-ID: <1noe7sINN18v@network.ucsd.edu> References: <1nnkojINNpba@senator-bedfellow.MIT.EDU> NNTP-Posting-Host: ucsd.edu In article scs@iti.org (Steve Simmons) writes: >So USL might have very little to lose by continuing. Yes, BSDI/UCB >might counter-sue for harassment. Such suits are very expensive to >pursue and even harder to win. If USLs strategy is to wear them down, >that's an acceptable risk. On the other hand, a University whose nine campuses include three separate law schools might not have a shortage of talent upon which to draw if they should decide to continue the actions. - Brian From: tzs@stein2.u.washington.edu (Tim Smith) Newsgroups: alt.suit.att-bsdi,misc.legal Subject: Re: Judge's decision is on uunet Date: 12 Mar 1993 08:17:11 GMT Organization: University of Washington School of Law, Class of '95 Lines: 35 Message-ID: <1npgu7INNnv@shelley.u.washington.edu> References: <1nnkojINNpba@senator-bedfellow.MIT.EDU> <1noe7sINN18v@network.ucsd.edu> NNTP-Posting-Host: stein2.u.washington.edu [I'm adding misc.legal, as the people there might find this amusing] In article <1noe7sINN18v@network.ucsd.edu> brian@ucsd.edu (Brian Kantor) writes: >On the other hand, a University whose nine campuses include three >separate law schools might not have a shortage of talent upon which >to draw if they should decide to continue the actions. Ha ha ha (rolling on the floor, laughing). That's a good one. (It's four law schools, by the way: UCLA, Davis, Berkeley, and Hastings). My contracts professor told us an amusing true story last term. He was on a committee in charge of hotel arrangements for the annual meeting of the association of law school professors. After they had made arrangements, it was discovered that one of the hotels was involved in a labor dispute. Many law professors were uncomfortable with the idea of using that hotel, and were threatening to boycott the meeting unless they were put in a different hotel. A conference call was held where the situation was discussed. Among the committee members were a couple of Deans and a couple of people who teach contracts (including some from top law schools). The committee decided by a vote of 5-1 that they would be able to get out of the contract with the hotel, under a variety of theories. They made their recommendation to the guy in charge of the association of law school professors. He had the good sense to contact a *practicing* commercial lawyer, who set him straight about how long the various professors' theories would have held up in court. I somehow doubt that the fear of facing the faculty of a few law schools in court has AT&T's lawyers trembling in their briefs... --Tim Smith Newsgroups: alt.suit.att-bsdi From: bzs@world.std.com (Barry Shein) Subject: Re: Judge's decision is on uunet In-Reply-To: scs@iti.org's message of Thu, 11 Mar 1993 16:02:11 GMT Message-ID: Sender: bzs@world.std.com (Barry Shein) Organization: The World References: <1nnkojINNpba@senator-bedfellow.MIT.EDU> Date: Fri, 12 Mar 1993 00:48:43 GMT Lines: 48 >A number of other motions were also ruled on. In short, pretty much >everything else that USL asked was granted, while everything else >BSDI/UCB asked for was denied. Most of these (IMHO) were pretty much >legal smoke and mirrors, but anybody who thinks this is over is wrong. The decisions "against" UCB/BSDI involved a request for change in venue from New Jersey to California and that USL had improperly filed against the Regents individually rather than severally (approximately.) Pretty minor, procedural, stuff given that the rest of the judgement basically blasts USL's claims of either copyright or trade secret status for 32V, those are just motions to dismiss everything. And the judge with some small reservations basically doubts that BSDI/UCB obtained any sort of competitive advantage (the critical test) by some 1% or less of code that might have been arguably copied (i.e. that's how much USL claims, frequently in the document the judge uses a form of, roughly: Even if USL's factual claims on this or that point are taken as entirely true and factual it would not lead to the conclusion they desire.) It's not just mere copying, particularly when it's such a tiny fraction, USL has to show that any specific copying did (or will do) some sort of harm to them. It's too easy to fall into a school kid's mentality of "they copied / they cheated", the law is not so simple on the matter (again, as the judge describes, read the ruling.) Put simply, if you look hard enough almost everything man-made in the world contains something from somewhere else. As an example, the judge wonders in writing how USL's claim that a few comments' (which, by the way, the judge does a great job of understanding and explaining) similarity could possibly put USL at some sort of competitive disadvantage or do them any harm, even if it is true. He does admit that if some gross structure were copied it could be an advantage, but seems suspicious at best that this occurred, he merely notes the claim and admits that if it could be proven it might be worthwhile, if if if. And then he tosses the request for injunction out without any ambiguity. -- -Barry Shein Software Tool & Die | bzs@world.std.com | uunet!world!bzs Purveyors to the Trade | Voice: 617-739-0202 | Login: 617-739-WRLD Newsgroups: alt.suit.att-bsdi From: henry@zoo.toronto.edu (Henry Spencer) Subject: Re: Judge's decision is on uunet Message-ID: Date: Fri, 12 Mar 1993 16:25:02 GMT References: <1nnkojINNpba@senator-bedfellow.MIT.EDU> Organization: U of Toronto Zoology Lines: 11 In article bzs@world.std.com (Barry Shein) writes: >As an example, the judge wonders in writing how USL's claim that a few >comments' (which, by the way, the judge does a great job of >understanding and explaining) similarity could possibly put USL at >some sort of competitive disadvantage... I was generally quite impressed by the judge's assessment of the technical issues. This guy has done his homework. (We got lucky. :-)) -- C++ is the best example of second-system| Henry Spencer @ U of Toronto Zoology effect since OS/360. | henry@zoo.toronto.edu utzoo!henry Newsgroups: alt.suit.att-bsdi From: michael@resonex.com (Michael Bryan) Subject: Re: Judge's decision is on uunet Message-ID: <1993Mar12.160723.4070@resonex.com> Organization: Resonex Inc., Fremont CA References: Date: Fri, 12 Mar 1993 16:07:23 GMT Lines: 16 In article henry@zoo.toronto.edu (Henry Spencer) writes: > >I was generally quite impressed by the judge's assessment of the technical >issues. This guy has done his homework. (We got lucky. :-)) I agree! I haven't had time to read it in detail just yet, but a few "spot checks" show that the judge has a good technical understanding of the situation. Anyone who thinks the judicial system never seems to fathom technical software issues should *definitely* check out this document! -- Michael Bryan michael@resonex.com (510)249-9600 x325 Resonex, Inc. ____ ____ 47911 Westinghouse Dr. \ / \ / Fremont, CA 94539 \/ Hate is not a family value. \/ From: jfc@athena.mit.edu (John F Carr) Newsgroups: alt.suit.att-bsdi Subject: Re: Judge's decision is on uunet Message-ID: <1nt42tINNet5@senator-bedfellow.MIT.EDU> Date: 13 Mar 93 17:02:21 GMT References: <1993Mar12.160723.4070@resonex.com> Organization: Massachusetts Institute of Technology Lines: 15 NNTP-Posting-Host: achates.mit.edu In article <1993Mar12.160723.4070@resonex.com> michael@resonex.com (Michael Bryan) writes: >I agree! I haven't had time to read it in detail just yet, but a few >"spot checks" show that the judge has a good technical understanding >of the situation. Anyone who thinks the judicial system never seems >to fathom technical software issues should *definitely* check out >this document! Does this ruling indicate that the judge understands the issues, or that he has a staff who does? -- John Carr (jfc@athena.mit.edu) Newsgroups: alt.suit.att-bsdi From: henry@zoo.toronto.edu (Henry Spencer) Subject: Re: Judge's decision is on uunet Message-ID: Date: Sat, 13 Mar 1993 23:55:58 GMT References: <1993Mar12.160723.4070@resonex.com> <1nt42tINNet5@senator-bedfellow.MIT.EDU> Organization: U of Toronto Zoology Lines: 14 In article <1nt42tINNet5@senator-bedfellow.MIT.EDU> jfc@athena.mit.edu (John F Carr) writes: >>I agree! I haven't had time to read it in detail just yet, but a few >>"spot checks" show that the judge has a good technical understanding... > >Does this ruling indicate that the judge understands the issues, or >that he has a staff who does? Either he understands the issues, or he has a staff that does *and* he listens to them. He's done an admirably concise job of summarizing issues that non-computer people often misunderstand. I didn't notice a single technical gaffe, even in minor matters of wording. -- C++ is the best example of second-system| Henry Spencer @ U of Toronto Zoology effect since OS/360. | henry@zoo.toronto.edu utzoo!henry Newsgroups: alt.suit.att-bsdi From: bzs@world.std.com (Barry Shein) Subject: Re: Judge's decision is on uunet In-Reply-To: henry@zoo.toronto.edu's message of Sat, 13 Mar 1993 23:55:58 GMT Message-ID: Sender: bzs@world.std.com (Barry Shein) Organization: The World References: <1993Mar12.160723.4070@resonex.com> <1nt42tINNet5@senator-bedfellow.MIT.EDU> Date: Sun, 14 Mar 1993 02:00:03 GMT Lines: 74 Although not 100% to the issue of his specific technical alacrity I think this one paragraph is telling of a lot of understanding with the whole issue (whether you agree or not the paragraph's entire structure just has a ring of understanding about the whole issue to it): A further consideration is that 32V's overall organization may not even be protectable in the first place. Berkeley's license to use 32V protects 32V derivatives only to the extent that they contain certain proprietary information. If Berkeley excises the proprietary information (as it attempted to do with Net2), Berkeley is free to distribute derivatives without restriction. Berkeley has utilized this freedom in the past to distribute a number of non-proprietary systems and portions of systems, all apparently without objections from AT&T. These distributions, to some degree, must have disclosed the overall organization of 32V. Thus, Berkeley's activities under the licensing agreement, and AT&T's acceptance of those activities, are evidence that Berkeley and AT&T interpreted the agreement to allow the disclosure of at least some of 32V's organization. Some other nice technical bits: To begin with, it is important to compare Net2 side-by-side with 32V. Net2 has far outgrown 32V and now weighs in at nearly ten times the size of its parent. The alleged overlaps between parent and child probably amount to less than a percent of the total. (Joint Decl. at 12, 13.) Indeed, ignoring header files and comments (see below), the overlap in the critical "kernel" region is but 56 lines out of 230,9995, and the overlap elsewhere is 130 lines out of 1.3 million. However, as both sides argue (but to different effect), the nature of the overlap is more significant than its size. [there are several typos in the transcription which looks like it was done with an OCR, so I'll guess 230,9995 is really 230,999?] ... To understand the functional importance of this overlap, it is necessary to understand its nature. Overlap in items such as variable, file, and function names is functionally irrelevant to the program insofar as the program is wholly self-referential. That is, is a programmer could name a variable or function anything at all without disabling the program, as long as the program did not interface with other programs. But once a program interfaces with another program, the file, function, or variable names can become significant. The two programs may have certain files, functions, or variables in common, and these must have the same names in order for the programs to interface. Programs written to run with a UNIX-like operating system have now became so common that industry standards govern the requirements of UNIX interfaces. For example, the UNIX operating systems contain files called "header" files. Header files are repositories of common definitions and declarations. If a programmer knows that an operating system contains a certain header file, then the programmer can simply refer to the header file and avoid reproducing all of the definitions and declarations. Of course, such a program can only run with an operating system having the proper header files. Therefore, Defendants have included 32V's header files in Net2 as a matter of necessity, to insure that the many programs written for UNIX-like systems will be compatible with Net2. [that last three paragraphs could have read out of a Unix textbook, the conciseness is quite impressive.] -- -Barry Shein Software Tool & Die | bzs@world.std.com | uunet!world!bzs Purveyors to the Trade | Voice: 617-739-0202 | Login: 617-739-WRLD From: tal@Warren.MENTORG.COM (Tom Limoncelli) Newsgroups: alt.suit.att-bsdi Subject: Re: Judge's decision is on uunet Date: 15 Mar 1993 14:02:50 -0500 Organization: Mentor Graphics -- IC Group Lines: 28 Message-ID: <1o2jsq$22q@milk.Warren.MENTORG.COM> References: <1993Mar12.160723.4070@resonex.com> <1nt42tINNet5@senator-bedfellow.MIT.EDU> NNTP-Posting-Host: milk.warren.mentorg.com X-Newsreader: NN version 6.4.19 #2 In bzs@world.std.com (Barry Shein) writes: >[that last three paragraphs could have read out of a Unix textbook, >the conciseness is quite impressive.] Agreed. I can see it now: Coming to a bookstore near you... Honorable Dickinson R. Debevoise's Guide to Programming Unix. Honorable Dickinson R. Debevoise's Guide to C++. Honorable Dickinson R. Debevoise's Perl Programming For The Legal World. Honorable Dickinson R. Debevoise's X11R6 Tricks and Tips. Honorable Dickinson R. Debevoise's Hard Disk Repair Guide. Honorable Dickinson R. Debevoise's WorkPerfect 5.3 Made Easy. Honorable Dickinson R. Debevoise's Windows NT Application Guidebook. Honorable Dickinson R. Debevoise's Whole Internet Users Guide. Watch out Peter Norton! Tom -- Tom Limoncelli -- tal@warren.mentorg.com (work) -- tal@plts.org (play) Disclaimer: I do not speak for Mentor Graphics. I can't even do the accent. Newsgroups: alt.suit.att-bsdi From: cp78085@csie.nctu.edu.tw (Tan Koan-Sin) Subject: Re: Judge's decision is on uunet Message-ID: Sender: usenet@csie.nctu.edu.tw Organization: Computer Sci. & Information Eng., NCTU, Taiwan X-Newsreader: TIN [version 1.1 PL6] References: <1o2jsq$22q@milk.Warren.MENTORG.COM> Date: Tue, 16 Mar 1993 02:36:30 GMT Lines: 11 Tom Limoncelli (tal@Warren.MENTORG.COM) wrote: :-> Honorable Dickinson R. Debevoise's X11R6 Tricks and Tips. ^^^^^ Where to find X11R6 ? -------------------------------------------------------------------------------- Tan Koan-Sin ( Chen Guan-Chen) |e-mail : Computer Center | cp78085@csie.nctu.edu.tw Dept of Computer Science & Information Eng.| freedom@csie.nctu.edu.tw National Chiao-Tung Univ., Hsin-chu | tel: 886-35-712121 ext 6430 Taiwan | fax: 886-35-721486 From: terry@cs.weber.edu (A Wizard of Earth C) Newsgroups: alt.suit.att-bsdi Subject: Re: Judge's decision is on uunet Message-ID: <1993Mar16.224806.11145@fcom.cc.utah.edu> Date: 16 Mar 93 22:48:06 GMT References: <1o2jsq$22q@milk.Warren.MENTORG.COM> Sender: news@fcom.cc.utah.edu Organization: Weber State University (Ogden, UT) Lines: 27 In article cp78085@csie.nctu.edu.tw (Tan Koan-Sin) writes: >Tom Limoncelli (tal@Warren.MENTORG.COM) wrote: >:-> Honorable Dickinson R. Debevoise's X11R6 Tricks and Tips. > ^^^^^ >Where to find X11R6 ? It's in aplha, and not yet released. This was a joke on the judges' supposed future activities, hence the future verion references for X and WordPerfect. Like in the movie "Die Hard", when the bad guys start up the spiffy graphic interface on the corporate computer and the "boot" message says "BSD 9.2". I m a unx trva spclst 8-) 8-). Terry Lambert terry@icarus.weber.edu terry_lambert@novell.com --- Any opinions in this posting are my own and not those of my present or previous employers. -- ------------------------------------------------------------------------------- "I have an 8 user poetic license" - me Get the 386bsd FAQ from agate.berkeley.edu:/pub/386BSD/386bsd-0.1/unofficial ------------------------------------------------------------------------------- Newsgroups: alt.suit.att-bsdi From: witr@rwwa.COM (Robert Withrow) Subject: Re: Judge's decision is on uunet Message-ID: <1993Mar12.144152.14864@rwwa.COM> Sender: news@rwwa.COM (News Administrator) Nntp-Posting-Host: spooky Reply-To: witr@rwwa.com Organization: R.W. Withrow Associates References: <1nnkojINNpba@senator-bedfellow.MIT.EDU> Distribution: usa Date: Fri, 12 Mar 1993 14:41:52 GMT Lines: 15 In article , scs@iti.org (Steve Simmons) writes: | So USL might have very little to lose by continuing. That is absurd. It is never better to loose than to settle. Putting aside the completely unlikely countersuit issue, loosing involves prejudice, and involves the possibility of an award for defendant's attorney fees. USL has less to loose by settling, since it has the opportunity to negotiate favorable conditions: It still has a good bargaining position since the cost of continuing hurts BSDI more than USL. -- Robert Withrow, Tel: +1 617 598 4480, Fax: +1 617 598 4430, Net: witr@rwwa.COM R.W. Withrow Associates, 21 Railroad Ave, Swampscott MA 01907-1821 USA From: olsen@athena.mit.edu (James J Olsen) Newsgroups: alt.suit.att-bsdi Subject: Re: Judge's decision is on uunet Date: 12 Mar 1993 16:00:43 GMT Organization: Massachusetts Institute of Technology Lines: 40 Message-ID: <1nqc3bINN2rl@senator-bedfellow.MIT.EDU> References: <1nnkojINNpba@senator-bedfellow.MIT.EDU> NNTP-Posting-Host: vongole.mit.edu scs@iti.org (Steve Simmons) writes: >He said pretty explicitly that it wasn't clear that USL has (a) has a >valid copyright on V32 UNIX, or (b) that any trade secrets were >actually released. Judge Debevoise's decision is different on the two important aspects: copyright and trade secret. IMHO, the copyright decision is the more telling one. There were many different claims and counterclaims regarding the copyright in UNIX 32V. However, the most fundamental one was the subsistence of any copyright at all. This was substantially a question of law, as opposed to one of fact, regarding publication without copyright notice. The judge swept away USL's (feeble) legal arguments on this question, and decided that UNIX 32V appears to be in the public domain, for copyright purposes. While still unconvinced by USL's arguments on the trade secret status of UNIX 32V, the judge left the door open for deciding that parts of the system, or 32V as a whole, might constitute trade secrets which were divulged by publication of Net/2. This seems unlikely, given the close scrutiny that CSRG gave the Net/2 code, and the plethora of publicly-available material describing the structure of UNIX, but it is possible. However, the trade-secret question is basically irrelevant to the redistibution status of Net/2. A trade secret, once made public, vanishes into thin air. There may be liability for those who divulged the secret, but those come by it innocently are completely free to use it. (If there were found to be AT&T trade secrets in the proprietary part of BSD/386, that might be a problem, since they have not been made public.) Copyright, on the other hand, applies to everyone. The judge's indication that UNIX 32V is in the public domain removes that shadow from Net/2. It is difficult to see on what basis USL could now sue someone for his or her use of Net/2 code in a new program or operating system. -- Jim Olsen -- olsen@mit.edu Newsgroups: alt.suit.att-bsdi From: henry@zoo.toronto.edu (Henry Spencer) Subject: Re: Judge's decision is on uunet Message-ID: Date: Fri, 12 Mar 1993 16:32:26 GMT References: <1nnkojINNpba@senator-bedfellow.MIT.EDU> <1nqc3bINN2rl@senator-bedfellow.MIT.EDU> Organization: U of Toronto Zoology Lines: 23 In article <1nqc3bINN2rl@senator-bedfellow.MIT.EDU> olsen@athena.mit.edu (James J Olsen) writes: >Judge Debevoise's decision is different on the two important aspects: >copyright and trade secret... Indeed so. For those who still haven't read the decision (what are you waiting for? :-)), he said roughly "32V does not appear to be copyrighted" and "USL has not made a case that 32V contains anything that could be considered a trade secret any more". He's left the door open, in principle, to USL making a better case for trade secret (although it would be hard), but essentially told them that their claims of copyright are nonsense. >... A trade secret, once made public, >vanishes into thin air. There may be liability for those who divulged >the secret, but those come by it innocently are completely free to use >it... Note, however, the word "innocently". It is not enough to get it from public sources. You must also reasonably believe that it is free and clear. If there is good reason for you to suspect that the stuff you're fetching might be tainted, you are *not* coming by it innocently. -- C++ is the best example of second-system| Henry Spencer @ U of Toronto Zoology effect since OS/360. | henry@zoo.toronto.edu utzoo!henry Newsgroups: alt.suit.att-bsdi From: jtw@lcs.mit.edu (John Wroclawski) Subject: Re: Judge's decision is on uunet In-Reply-To: henry@zoo.toronto.edu's message of Fri, 12 Mar 1993 16:32:26 GMT Message-ID: Sender: news@mintaka.lcs.mit.edu Organization: MIT Home for Wayward Triumphs References: <1nnkojINNpba@senator-bedfellow.MIT.EDU> <1nqc3bINN2rl@senator-bedfellow.MIT.EDU> Date: Sat, 13 Mar 1993 00:48:05 GMT Lines: 25 In article henry@zoo.toronto.edu (Henry Spencer) writes: In article <1nqc3bINN2rl@senator-bedfellow.MIT.EDU> olsen@athena.mit.edu (James J Olsen) writes: >Judge Debevoise's decision is different on the two important aspects: >copyright and trade secret... Indeed so. [...] He's left the door open, in principle, to USL making a better case for trade secret (although it would be hard), I am unconvinced. My interpretation of this ruling is that while he felt that trade secret claims based on specific bits of 32V were unlikely to succeed, a claim based on the "overall structure" of 32V might fly. If I were BSDI, I'd be looking hard for early public descriptions of the overall structure and internal organization of a 1980 unix kernel. Perhaps Bach (say) will provide an adequate defense, but this issue is still open. Judge Debevoise is pretty blunt here: "I am unable to decide", not "I have decided that USL has no case". --john John Wroclawski jtw@lcs.mit.edu From: mellon@ncd.com (Ted Lemon) Newsgroups: alt.suit.att-bsdi Subject: Re: Judge's decision is on uunet Date: 14 Mar 93 12:35:20 Organization: Network Computing Devices, Inc. Lines: 21 Message-ID: References: <1nnkojINNpba@senator-bedfellow.MIT.EDU> <1nqc3bINN2rl@senator-bedfellow.MIT.EDU> NNTP-Posting-Host: pepper.ncd.com In-reply-to: jtw@lcs.mit.edu's message of Sat, 13 Mar 1993 00:48:05 GMT >I am unconvinced. My interpretation of this ruling is that while he >felt that trade secret claims based on specific bits of 32V were >unlikely to succeed, a claim based on the "overall structure" of 32V >might fly. Yes, but BSDI could easily rearrange the structure of the system (as indeed has been done to some extent in 4.4BSD) and thereby cease and desist from distributing that information. Furthermore, in order to get a truly damaging ruling, USL would have to prove not only infringement, but also clear and irreparable damage as a result of that infringement. This seems unlikely, since the structure of the kernel is largely a combination of logic and happenstance, and since something much like it has been exposed to every binary licensee of UNIX since the beginning of time. _MelloN_ -- mellon@ncd.com uunet!lupine!mellon Member of the League for Programming Freedom. To find out how software patents may cost you your right to program, contact lpf@uunet.uu.net Newsgroups: alt.suit.att-bsdi From: bzs@world.std.com (Barry Shein) Subject: Re: Judge's decision is on uunet In-Reply-To: mellon@ncd.com's message of 14 Mar 93 12:35:20 Message-ID: Sender: bzs@world.std.com (Barry Shein) Organization: The World References: <1nnkojINNpba@senator-bedfellow.MIT.EDU> <1nqc3bINN2rl@senator-bedfellow.MIT.EDU> Date: Mon, 15 Mar 1993 03:03:12 GMT Lines: 83 From: mellon@ncd.com (Ted Lemon) >Yes, but BSDI could easily rearrange the structure of the system (as >indeed has been done to some extent in 4.4BSD) and thereby cease and >desist from distributing that information. Far be it for me to play devil's advocate a little her, but I think you're missing the sense of "structure of the system" the judge was referring to (this is starting to resemble talmudic studies!) Put pragmatically, that overall structural information which might save a programmer a lot of trial and error or other false starts. One only has to look at how poorly some other OS's do some relatively simple things (to Unix) to realize there is some merit to this. It's amusing that every dunderheaded OS now serves as a potential example. Within a kernel design there are certainly a lot of potentially good or bad design decisions which need to be made. A good example (I am familiar with) is where to "split" a device interface, what exactly to make part of the hardware management (purely) with, say, a half-dozen entry intra-kernel entry points (e.g. dkstrategy()) and what to keep up above to form the portion the application programmer sees and, just as important, what can be made modular and re-useable (e.g. balloc()/bfree()). It's a devilish problem and I think we still haven't figured it out for network devices such as ethernet. Witness the half-dozen *major* attempts, NIT, the Stanford interface in early 4.2bsd, something I don't remember the name of that showed up in a recent Usenix paper, etc all of which haven't quite swept the industry off its collective feet. Compare also that very clean and apparently useful (disk and some other devices in Unix) design with the near madness that goes on inside the VMS "kernel" trying very hard to be all things to all people at all levels in some vainglorious effort to be "efficient". Enormous confusion simply because they didn't quite figure out how to isolate some of the major craziness into something like ioctl() or fcntl() (not that that's exactly the high point of the Unix design, but it seems to have done the trick while avoiding basic system calls with a dozen or more arguments, many very device dependent in form, viz. QIO.) However, to argue that any example (such as the one above) is either copyrighted or trade secret (that is, protected by law as the exclusive property of one party), at this point, seems futile. The concept may exist, nad it is a good one, but so are the workings of a three-part harmony. I suppose it is plausible that had some of this gone on later some of it may have been software patentable. Fortunately it didn't, so it wasn't, so it ain't. >Furthermore, in order to >get a truly damaging ruling, USL would have to prove not only >infringement, but also clear and irreparable damage as a result of >that infringement. Exactly. Or at least some palpable damage. That was USL's apparent quandary, strike now while the opposition was small and (supposedly) easy to attrite, but could hardly be claimed to have caused any damage. Or wait until they were a major factor in the market (thus the damage) and therefore could more easily fight back, but also would have lost USL all sense of acting promptly, as well as put the public policy side of the issue against them. In cases like this Judges and juries can consider public policy issues, ultimately any property law has to serve the public at large (the owners/users of that property being also part of that public!) and protection is granted by that public in its own interest and at its cost. Shutting down an entire segment of an industry because someone thinks they found a point of law under their desk blotter is not something that thrills courts. They can say, quite legally, ``you're right, but sorry, it would cause too many bad things to happen at this point, you should have spoken up sooner (or managed things differently up until now), the court can't undo all this and still serve the public's interest''. -- -Barry Shein Software Tool & Die | bzs@world.std.com | uunet!world!bzs Purveyors to the Trade | Voice: 617-739-0202 | Login: 617-739-WRLD Newsgroups: alt.suit.att-bsdi From: guyd@austin.ibm.com (Guy Dawson) Subject: Re: Judge's decision is on uunet Originator: guyd@pal500.austin.ibm.com Sender: news@austin.ibm.com (News id) Message-ID: Date: Mon, 15 Mar 1993 15:15:47 GMT References: <1nnkojINNpba@senator-bedfellow.MIT.EDU> Organization: IBM Austin Lines: 14 [ Discussion about the structure of 32V as a protectable item ] A lot of the structure of 32V can be derived from the system interfaces. Since you know the name, purpose and relationship to other functions of a given function you can quite easly deduce a lot about the system structure. Guy -- -------------------------------------------------------------------------------- Guy Dawson - Hoskyns Group Plc. guyd@hoskyns.co.uk Tel Hoskyns UK - 71 251 2128 guyd@austin.ibm.com Tel IBM Austin USA - 512 838 3377 From: mellon@ncd.com (Ted Lemon) Newsgroups: alt.suit.att-bsdi Subject: Re: Judge's decision is on uunet Date: 15 Mar 93 10:10:36 Organization: Network Computing Devices, Inc. Lines: 29 Message-ID: References: <1nnkojINNpba@senator-bedfellow.MIT.EDU> <1nqc3bINN2rl@senator-bedfellow.MIT.EDU> NNTP-Posting-Host: pepper.ncd.com In-reply-to: bzs@world.std.com's message of Mon, 15 Mar 1993 03:03:12 GMT >A good example (I am familiar with) is where to "split" a device >interface, what exactly to make part of the hardware management >(purely) with, say, a half-dozen entry intra-kernel entry points (e.g. >dkstrategy()) and what to keep up above to form the portion the >application programmer sees and, just as important, what can be made >modular and re-useable (e.g. balloc()/bfree()). 4.4 BSD and previous versions have changed the device driver interface quite substantially, to the point where it would barely be recognizable to a V7 or 32V programmer who had been asleep for the past decade and a half. In particular, the functionality that is available to the device driver for allocating memory and scheduling itself is much fancier. Some of the functionality that's made available from the device driver to the kernel has also changed substantially. Back in the days of 32V, the device driver interface was really the only interesting internal interface that was defined at all - things like the filesystem were monolithically embedded, and there was no networking at all. To claim infringement on the basis of internally defined "interfaces" would be a bizarre and tragic joke. _MelloN_ -- mellon@ncd.com uunet!lupine!mellon Member of the League for Programming Freedom. To find out how software patents may cost you your right to program, contact lpf@uunet.uu.net Newsgroups: alt.suit.att-bsdi From: terry@cs.weber.edu (A Wizard of Earth C) Subject: Re: Judge's decision is on uunet Message-ID: <1993Mar12.232753.15064@fcom.cc.utah.edu> Sender: news@fcom.cc.utah.edu Organization: Weber State University (Ogden, UT) References: <1nqc3bINN2rl@senator-bedfellow.MIT.EDU> Date: Fri, 12 Mar 93 23:27:53 GMT Lines: 53 In article henry@zoo.toronto.edu (Henry Spencer) writes: >In article <1nqc3bINN2rl@senator-bedfellow.MIT.EDU> olsen@athena.mit.edu (James J Olsen) writes: >>Judge Debevoise's decision is different on the two important aspects: >>copyright and trade secret... > >Indeed so. For those who still haven't read the decision (what are you >waiting for? :-)), he said roughly "32V does not appear to be copyrighted" >and "USL has not made a case that 32V contains anything that could be >considered a trade secret any more". He's left the door open, in principle, >to USL making a better case for trade secret (although it would be hard), >but essentially told them that their claims of copyright are nonsense. > >>... A trade secret, once made public, >>vanishes into thin air. There may be liability for those who divulged >>the secret, but those come by it innocently are completely free to use >>it... > >Note, however, the word "innocently". It is not enough to get it from >public sources. You must also reasonably believe that it is free and >clear. If there is good reason for you to suspect that the stuff you're >fetching might be tainted, you are *not* coming by it innocently. This would include it's publication and sale in the bookstore at the University of Sydney (I believe that's where it was) as course materials for an internals class, right? The publication was pulled quickly, but not until *after* some purchases has been made (about 2 quarters worth, if I remember correctly) by people who would qualify as "coming by it innocently". There is also a rumor that someone broke into research.att.com and pulled the code when it was stored there. If this rumor is true, second-tier recipients of *that* code could qualify. This provides at least two channels for innocent acquisition if the damage control in Australia were insufficient legally and if the research rumor is true. Innocent acquisition of the full sources would certainly dispell any doubts that remain about trade secrets embodied in 32V's structure still being secret. Terry Lambert terry@icarus.weber.edu --- Any opinions in this posting are my own and not those of my present or previous employers. -- ------------------------------------------------------------------------------- "I have an 8 user poetic license" - me Get the 386bsd FAQ from agate.berkeley.edu:/pub/386BSD/386bsd-0.1/unofficial ------------------------------------------------------------------------------- Newsgroups: alt.suit.att-bsdi From: sms@WLV.IIPO.GTEGSC.COM (Steven M. Schultz) Subject: Re: Judge's decision is on uunet Message-ID: <1993Mar13.101447.26059@wlbr.iipo.gtegsc.com> Sender: news@wlbr.iipo.gtegsc.com (news) Nntp-Posting-Host: wlv.iipo.gtegsc.com Organization: GTE Government Systems References: <1nqc3bINN2rl@senator-bedfellow.MIT.EDU> <1993Mar12.232753.15064@fcom.cc.utah.edu> Date: Sat, 13 Mar 93 10:14:47 GMT Lines: 17 In article <1993Mar12.232753.15064@fcom.cc.utah.edu> terry@cs.weber.edu (A Wizard of Earth C) writes: >This provides at least two channels for innocent acquisition if the damage >control in Australia were insufficient legally and if the research rumor >is true. > >Innocent acquisition of the full sources would certainly dispell any doubts >that remain about trade secrets embodied in 32V's structure still being >secret. Hmmmm, i wonder... Might this not lead to a loosening of the restrictions on 2.xBSD (the pdp-11 variant of 32V, 4.x, usw.)? Lot of folks with old iron would be happy to hear that a US$100k license wasn't needed for a (~)$1k machine. Or is the DeathStar scared of pdp-11s? ;-) Steven M. Schultz sms@wlv.iipo.gtegsc.com From: tzs@stein2.u.washington.edu (Tim Smith) Newsgroups: alt.suit.att-bsdi Subject: Re: Judge's decision is on uunet Date: 13 Mar 1993 19:37:53 GMT Organization: University of Washington School of Law, Class of '95 Lines: 14 Message-ID: <1ntd6hINNp53@shelley.u.washington.edu> References: <1nqc3bINN2rl@senator-bedfellow.MIT.EDU> <1993Mar12.232753.15064@fcom.cc.utah.edu> NNTP-Posting-Host: stein2.u.washington.edu terry@cs.weber.edu (A Wizard of Earth C) writes: >This would include it's publication and sale in the bookstore at the >University of Sydney (I believe that's where it was) as course materials >for an internals class, right? > >The publication was pulled quickly, but not until *after* some purchases >has been made (about 2 quarters worth, if I remember correctly) by people >who would qualify as "coming by it innocently". The copy I would have if I had a copy (nudge, nudge, wink, wink) would clearly say on the front that the material is under non-disclosure and is only to be shown to licenses of AT&T. --Tim Smith Newsgroups: alt.suit.att-bsdi From: wcs@anchor.ho.att.com (Bill Stewart +1-908-949-0705) Subject: Re: Judge's decision is on uunet Organization: Electronic Birdwatching Society Date: Mon, 15 Mar 1993 02:49:57 GMT Message-ID: In-Reply-To: tzs@stein2.u.washington.edu's message of 13 Mar 1993 19:37:53 GMT References: <1nqc3bINN2rl@senator-bedfellow.MIT.EDU> <1993Mar12.232753.15064@fcom.cc.utah.edu> <1ntd6hINNp53@shelley.u.washington.edu> Sender: news@cbnewsh.cb.att.com (NetNews Administrator) Nntp-Posting-Host: rainier.ho.att.com Lines: 23 In article <1ntd6hINNp53@shelley.u.washington.edu> tzs@stein2.u.washington.edu (Tim Smith) writes: >This would include it's publication and sale in the bookstore at the >University of Sydney (I believe that's where it was) as course materials >for an internals class, right? The copy I would have if I had a copy (nudge, nudge, wink, wink) would clearly say on the front that the material is under non-disclosure and is only to be shown to licensees of AT&T. If you're referring to the Lions (Lyons?) book, it was V6, not 32V, though one could examine whether any 32V material in question was also in V6. University of New South Wales, I think? Unfortunately, in a rare fit of office-cleaning around 6-8 years ago, I tossed my copy. This was before widespread recycling, so it may be in a landfill on Staten Island somewhere near Jimmy Hoffa, but that does *not* count as a formal release by AT&T or its subsidiaries :-( If anybody's getting rid of a copy, I'd be happy to take it off your hands. -- # Pray for peace; Bill # Bill Stewart 1-908-949-0705 wcs@anchor.att.com AT&T Bell Labs 4M312 Holmdel NJ # Disclaimer available by finger (if you can get through our firewall :-) From: olsen@athena.mit.edu (James J Olsen) Newsgroups: alt.suit.att-bsdi Subject: Re: Judge's decision is on uunet Date: 14 Mar 1993 19:24:55 GMT Organization: Massachusetts Institute of Technology Lines: 45 Message-ID: <1o00q7INNsq@senator-bedfellow.MIT.EDU> References: <1nqc3bINN2rl@senator-bedfellow.MIT.EDU> NNTP-Posting-Host: e40-008-7.mit.edu In article henry@zoo.toronto.edu (Henry Spencer) writes: >olsen@athena.mit.edu (James J Olsen) writes: >>... A trade secret, once made public, vanishes into thin air. There >>may be liability for those who divulged the secret, but those come >>by it innocently are completely free to use it... >Note, however, the word "innocently". It is not enough to get it from >public sources. You must also reasonably believe that it is free and >clear. If there is good reason for you to suspect that the stuff you're >fetching might be tainted, you are *not* coming by it innocently. While this is true, it's wrong to make much of it in relation to Net/2. Even if there were USL trade secrets in Net/2 when it was released, it's hard to see how there could be any now. One of the requirements for trade-secret protection is the secret's owner must make reasonable efforts to protect the secret. USL had a golden opportunity to protect the alleged secrets in Net/2 when CSRG offered it to USL for pre-publication review. USL did nothing. Although fully aware of the Internet archive sites distributing Net/2, and of the Jolitzes distributing 386BSD, USL still does nothing about them. Why? The most reasonable explanation is that USL realizes that the cat is out of the bag, and the best they can do is attack those who opened the bag. A trade secret, to be protected, must be secret. 'Secret' in this case does not mean 'unavailable to the public', but rather 'not generally known in the industry'. At the moment of its release, Net/2 probably contained much information not generally known in the industry. Now, tens or hundreds of thousands of copies permeate the worldwide network, each accompanied, not by a stern AT&T non-disclosure warning, but by a statement from a world-renowned university that the information is freely redistributable. If Net/2 is not generally known now, one is hard put to see how a software package of its magnitude could ever become generally known. Judge Debevoise has indicated that there appears to be no USL copyright in Net/2. Net/2 is now generally known in the industry, and USL's own inaction indicates that is has given up hope of trade secret protection in it. What's left for USL? -- Jim Olsen -- olsen@mit.edu Newsgroups: alt.suit.att-bsdi From: rpw3@rigden.wpd.sgi.com (Rob Warnock) Subject: Re: Judge's decision is on uunet Message-ID: Sender: rpw3@rigden.wpd.sgi.com Organization: Silicon Graphics, Inc. Mountain View, CA Date: Tue, 16 Mar 1993 10:47:47 GMT Lines: 32 henry@zoo.toronto.edu (Henry Spencer) writes: +--------------- | Either he understands the issues, or he has a staff that does *and* he | listens to them. He's done an admirably concise job of summarizing | issues that non-computer people often misunderstand. +--------------- Absolutely! +--------------- | I didn't notice a single technical gaffe, even in minor matters of wording. +--------------- Well... On page 16 [the way I printed it -- your mileage may differ], in the paragraph that begins: On the present record, however, it is impossible to determine whether the overall organization of Net2 has been disclosed. The record itself contains little information directly... I believe that "Net2" should read "32V" instead. "Net2" doesn't make any sense here. (Could be the transcriber's error and not the judge's. ???) -Rob ----- Rob Warnock, MS-9U/510 rpw3@sgi.com Silicon Graphics, Inc. (415)390-1673 2011 N. Shoreline Blvd. Mountain View, CA 94043 From: hsu@cs.hut.fi (Heikki Suonsivu) Newsgroups: alt.suit.att-bsdi Subject: Re: Judge's decision is on uunet Date: 16 Mar 1993 20:23:56 GMT Organization: Helsinki University of Technology, Finland Lines: 15 Distribution: inet Message-ID: References: NNTP-Posting-Host: cardhu.cs.hut.fi In-reply-to: rpw3@rigden.wpd.sgi.com's message of Tue, 16 Mar 1993 10:47:47 GMT In article rpw3@rigden.wpd.sgi.com (Rob Warnock) writes: I believe that "Net2" should read "32V" instead. "Net2" doesn't make any sense here. (Could be the transcriber's error and not the judge's. ???) The text looks like it is OCR'd, so I would guess that the judge in question is a human :-). - Heikki Suonsivu, T{ysikuu 10 C 83/02210 Espoo/FINLAND, hsu@{otax.tky.hut,cs.hut,clinet}.fi +358-0-8031121 /G=Heikki/S=Suonsivu/O=hut/OU=cs/PRMD=Inet/ADMD=Fumail/C=FI, mcsun!hutcs!hsu, riippu SN, Email preferable. Newsgroups: alt.suit.att-bsdi From: kredmiso@undergrad.math.waterloo.edu (Kelvin Edmison) Subject: Re: Judge's decision is on uunet Message-ID: Organization: University of Waterloo References: Date: Tue, 16 Mar 1993 21:17:37 GMT Lines: 13 For sites that just recently got this newsgroup, could someone please post a summary of what happened? From the few posts I got, it seems to be something big, but I can't tell what based upon only 2 articles... Thanks, Kelvin -- Who I am: | The Roman Rule Kelvin Edmison | The one who says it cannot be Who you think I am: | done should never interrupt kredmison@descartes.uwaterloo.ca | the one who is doing it. From: rdante@sdcc13.ucsd.edu (Rick Dante) Newsgroups: alt.suit.att-bsdi Subject: Re: Judge's decision is on uunet Date: 17 Mar 1993 04:52:42 GMT Organization: Newsreaders Anonymous Lines: 27 Distribution: world Message-ID: <1o6aqqINNjuf@network.ucsd.edu> Reply-To: rdante@sdcc13.ucsd.edu NNTP-Posting-Host: dialin1-47-1.extern.ucsd.edu In article 11145@fcom.cc.utah.edu, terry@cs.weber.edu (A Wizard of Earth C) writes: > In article cp78085@csie.nctu.edu.tw (Tan Koan-Sin) writes: > >Tom Limoncelli (tal@Warren.MENTORG.COM) wrote: > >:-> Honorable Dickinson R. Debevoise's X11R6 Tricks and Tips. > > ^^^^^ > >Where to find X11R6 ? > > Like in the movie "Die Hard", when the bad guys start up the spiffy > graphic interface on the corporate computer and the "boot" message > says "BSD 9.2". ^^^^^^^^^ > > I m a unx trva spclst 8-) 8-). > > Terry Lambert ------------------------------------------------------------------------------- > "I have an 8 user poetic license" - me > Get the 386bsd FAQ from agate.berkeley.edu:/pub/386BSD/386bsd-0.1/unofficial > ------------------------------------------------------------------------------- Now I'll have to rent Die Hard again to see that one :) Rick Dante (a 386BSD enthusist)