*BSD News Article 2434


Return to BSD News archive

Path: sserve!manuel!munnari.oz.au!network.ucsd.edu!usc!wupost!gumby!destroyer!uunet!mcsun!uknet!edcastle!aiai!jeff
From: jeff@aiai.ed.ac.uk (Jeff Dalton)
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: <7009@skye.ed.ac.uk>
Date: 24 Jul 92 18:44:35 GMT
References: <1992Jul21.142631.14517@mnemosyne.cs.du.edu> <mcuddy.711795634@fensende> <1992Jul22.212903.29537@gateway.novell.com>
Organization: AIAI, University of Edinburgh, Scotland
Lines: 39

In article <1992Jul22.212903.29537@gateway.novell.com> terry@npd.Novell.COM (Terry Lambert) writes:
>*** prediction alert *** prediction alert *** prediction alert ***
>
>I think that AT&T will win; not on the merits of reality, but on the merits
>of their arguments.  It will be difficult, without educating the judge to
>the point of a CS degree, to draw the distinctions necessary to prove
>non-infringement by BSDI.  It certainly *looks* like BSDI is infringing
>to a layman, and that's what the judge will be. 

I am not convinced of this.  A long time ago, UCB developed an
OS based on a system from AT&T.  That system lacked almost every
interesting thing now in BSD, including virtual memory.  Since then,
many man years of effort have gone into developing the system at
UCB.  Since all of the improvements are new, they were not based
on the AT&T code.  Finally, the last traces of AT&T code were removed.
(Presumably, UCB and co can produce a list of what these last traces
were, to show their insignificance.)

Why would this look like infringment?

However, we cannot be sure the courts will make a rational decision.

One thing that worries me is the claim of "unfair competition",
which seems to be based in part on the idea that BSDI was able
to develop a system quickly while AT&T has taken many man years
on their alternative.  Now, this is a bogus comparison, because
it leaves out all the man years of work at UCB, but suppose the
argument carries the day nonetheless.

The result may be this: anyone who takes public domain code and
produces a commercial system can be sued for unfair competition
by anyone who started from scratch.  Indeed, people who distribute
free systems might be sued.  So much for ___ (fill in favorite
source of free software) ___.

(NB -- my statements about AT&T's case are based entriely on
what I've read in this newsgroup.  I could easily be wrong.)

-- jd