Return to BSD News archive
Received: by minnie.vk1xwt.ampr.org with NNTP id AA7013 ; Fri, 15 Jan 93 17:12:24 EST Xref: sserve comp.org.eff.talk:11642 comp.unix.bsd:10077 comp.unix.wizards:28242 comp.org.usenix:3104 Path: sserve!manuel.anu.edu.au!munnari.oz.au!uunet!cs.utexas.edu!asuvax!chnews!sedona!bhoughto From: bhoughto@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.93Jan16205935@world.std.com> bzs@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..."