*BSD News Article 2426


Return to BSD News archive

Path: sserve!manuel!munnari.oz.au!network.ucsd.edu!usc!sol.ctr.columbia.edu!eff!world!ksr!jfw
From: jfw@ksr.com (John F. Woods)
Newsgroups: comp.unix.bsd
Subject: Re: AT&T vs. BSDI --> 4.3BSD-NET2 distribution requires AT&T license!!!
Keywords: AT&T 'Death Star' rises over BSDI's horizon [Tel. 1-800-800-4BSD
Message-ID: <14105@ksr.com>
Date: 24 Jul 92 13:03:33 EDT
References: <l6nibgINNje6@neuro.usc.edu> <3674@vidiot.UUCP> <sb380.711882282@fred>
Sender: news@ksr.com
Lines: 35

sb380@cs.city.ac.uk (Andy Holt) writes:
>In <3674@vidiot.UUCP> brown@vidiot.UUCP (Vidiot) writes:
>>                It is virtually impossible to not have had access to a Unix
>>system in one's career of computer science.  If that is allowed to stand,
>>AT&T will win every time.  Yuch.
>But that could wreck any AT&T claim to "trade secret" status - I suspect
>_far_ too many people have seen the code for such a claim to stand. 

Every single person in the world save one could know a given "trade secret"
if AT&T had a signed piece of paper requiring each of those knowledgable
individuals to treat the material as confidential (and note that if you worked
for a site which had a source license, your acceptance of your terms of
employment is the same as accepting the contract your employer signed to get
the source license).  AT&T has previously gone after "stolen" copies of UNIX,
and restricted the use of the "Lyons book" that was used in the operating
systems course at the University of New South Wales (UNIX V6 source code and
explanatory material, in two highly convenient books).

Since UCB was not authorized to disclose any trade secrets, then IF the NET2
sources really contain such trade secrets, AT&T could (I think) demand the
recall or destruction of any copies of it.  AT&T's problem might be that they
have been too slow to act -- in particular, "The Design of the 4.3BSD Operating
System" has been out for quite some time, and presumably would have disclosed
the same trade secrets (one hopes that they will try to avoid claiming anything
that *they* published in the Bach book, to avoid looking really stupid).  They
could wind up in a situation where they can successfully claim that trade
secrets were revealed (and thus they are owed damages from BSDI and UCB) but
they lose the trade secret status (which would presumably *increase* the
damages they are owed, since they have had a valuable "property" destroyed).

Consult a lawyer if you really care to know about all this (or if you have
ever seen the grim word "login:" on a screen, since your mind is now a wholly-
owned subsidiary of The Death Star...).