Return to BSD News archive
Path: sserve!manuel!munnari.oz.au!uunet!wupost!usc!zaphod.mps.ohio-state.edu!magnus.acs.ohio-state.edu!usenet.ins.cwru.edu!agate!cs.berkeley.edu!jtkohl From: jtkohl@cs.Berkeley.EDU (John T Kohl) Newsgroups: comp.unix.bsd Subject: Re: AT&T vs. BSDI --> 4.3BSD-NET2 distribution requires AT&T license!!! Date: 21 Jul 1992 17:20:45 GMT Organization: University of California, Berkeley Lines: 18 Message-ID: <14hh1dINNq7c@agate.berkeley.edu> References: <l6nibgINNje6@neuro.usc.edu> NNTP-Posting-Host: stinson.cs.berkeley.edu In-reply-to: merlin@neuro.usc.edu's message of 21 Jul 1992 01:23:12 -0700 In article <l6nibgINNje6@neuro.usc.edu> merlin@neuro.usc.edu (merlin) writes: > BSDI's motion to dismiss and subsequent press releases argue that AT&T has > not made out an adequate case of copyright infringement -- and -- therefore > cannot maintain their claim of false advertising or unfair competition > until they prove what BSDI would like to say is a simple copyright claim. Well, by my reading, BSDI's motion to dismiss is based on the paucity of facts cited by AT&T in the complaint. Specifically, the complaint does not specifically identify a component (or components) of NET/2 which allegedly infringe AT&T's intellectual property rights. The motion to dismiss cites civil code procedure, claiming in effect that the lack of specificity of the complaint requires the dismissal. -- John Kohl <jtkohl@cs.berkeley.edu> UC Berkeley CS grad student Member of the League for Programming Freedom--details: league@prep.ai.mit.edu (The above opinions are MINE. Don't put my words in somebody else's mouth!)