Return to BSD News archive
Received: by minnie.vk1xwt.ampr.org with NNTP id AA7174 ; Mon, 18 Jan 93 10:49:20 EST Xref: sserve comp.org.eff.talk:11703 comp.unix.bsd:10139 comp.unix.wizards:28261 comp.org.usenix:3122 Path: sserve!manuel.anu.edu.au!munnari.oz.au!spool.mu.edu!howland.reston.ans.net!paladin.american.edu!gatech!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: 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 <1jdibnINN52u@usenet.pa.dec.com> ed@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?"