Return to BSD News archive
Path: sserve!manuel!munnari.oz.au!uunet!caen!sdd.hp.com!usc!news From: merlin@neuro.usc.edu (merlin) Newsgroups: comp.unix.bsd Subject: Re: USL vs. BSDI, and what to do Date: 24 Jul 1992 13:56:03 -0700 Organization: University of Southern California, Los Angeles, CA Lines: 40 Sender: merlin@neuro.usc.edu (merlin) Message-ID: <l70rj3INNabu@neuro.usc.edu> References: <l6vrqvINN91g@neuro.usc.edu> <l6vt9sINN93u@neuro.usc.edu> <1992Jul24.170447.11039@Warren.MENTORG.COM> NNTP-Posting-Host: neuro.usc.edu In article <> tal@Warren.MENTORG.COM (Tom Limoncelli) writes: >In <l6vt9sINN93u@neuro.usc.edu> merlin@neuro.usc.edu (merlin) writes: > >> o Domestic and international letters should be addressed to: >> o Mr. Robert E. Allen [CEO of AT&T] >I hate to say this, but Bob has nothing to do with this. AT&T didn't >bring the law suit. USL did. USL has a different chair person, and >has their own lawyers (from what I've heard, they don't share lawyers... >so much for the "army of lawyers"). Whatever the formal legal organization of USL -- there can be no doubt AT&T's CEO can strongly influence if not actually direct their actions in response numerous complaints regarding the ATT/USL vs. BSDI suit. >Thought I haven't seen a complete copy of the suit (could someone post >it or email it to me?) I believe all it claims is that proper black box >techniques were not used to generate the NET2 (not NET1) release. >(blackbox techniques means like what Phoenix used when developing their >BIOS clone). Doesn't that make the above statement moot? It was my point that CSRG may not have used the Phoenix BIOS black box approach -- but such an approach is neither a legal requirement and/or even necessarily prudent to follow in the case of development of NET2. AT&T's failure to previously assert any proprietary interest in the NET1 or NET2 code resulted in BSDI's good faith reliance on that code as the source for much of their package. Moreover NET1 / Net2 have been used as the basis for several other software (particularly networking) codes. As a consequence, AT&T/USL must be estopped (prevented on the grounds of fairness) from asserting any continuing claim of interest in NET1 / NET2. >Hype from all over, more heat than light, more flames than news. >I think I'll start reading talk.bizarre instead. We could stop this discussion -- but because there is a possibility this case will adversely affect all of us in the form of AT&T claims on NET1 and NET2 imply claims on BSDI's BSD/386 and Jolitz's 386BSD and perhaps many other software packages, I suspect we should consider keeping the discussion alive in this forum -- but perhaps toned down a bit in volume.