Return to BSD News archive
Path: sserve!manuel!munnari.oz.au!hp9000.csc.cuhk.hk!uakari.primate.wisc.edu!usenet.coe.montana.edu!rpi!usc!wupost!psuvax1!rutgers!rochester!cantaloupe.srv.cs.cmu.edu!crabapple.srv.cs.cmu.edu!andrew.cmu.edu!fl0p+ From: fl0p+@andrew.cmu.edu (Frank T Lofaro) Newsgroups: comp.unix.bsd,alt.suit.att-bsdi Subject: Should AT&T own all of UN*X (was Re: UNIGRAM's article on the USL-BSDI suit) Message-ID: <0eU0W6G00VpK41FUYY@andrew.cmu.edu> Date: 5 Aug 92 16:57:42 GMT References: <1992Aug3.143259.23897@crd.ge.com> <7045@skye.ed.ac.uk> <KANDALL.92Aug4161214@globalize.nsg.sgi.com> <15lc26INNlpq@agate.berkeley.edu> <KANDALL.92Aug5143839@globalize.nsg.sgi.com> Organization: Freshman, Physics, Carnegie Mellon, Pittsburgh, PA Lines: 46 In-Reply-To: <KANDALL.92Aug5143839@globalize.nsg.sgi.com> Excerpts from alt.suit.att-bsdi (USENET): 5-Aug-92 Re: UNIGRAM's article on the USL-BSDI suit kandall@nsg.sgi.com (1455) >}> If that knowledge, gained without reading AT&T's proprietary >}> code, is then used to recreate part of UNIX, is it violating their >}> copyright? That's NOT what current copyright law generally holds. >}> That's not what current intellectual propertly law holds. >As I mentioned, independent of the legality, this practice has a >deleterious effect on open systems, discourages industry investment in >creating licensable technology, and shows no respect for the value of >the specification and design time invested by the original creators of >the system. That the legal system may no protect such things is >unfortunate. So you have a problem with any thing that has the look and feel of, or that even resembles something previously created. And you say this in the name of "open" systems! Sounds more like closed systems to me! Taking your idea further, you would have a problem with Chrysler for entering the auto-manufacturing business because Ford came up with the idea of a car first! You've just blown away the whole idea of competiton (at least that between remotely similar products), upon which capitalism is based. Lack of competition is what killed communism. Lack of competition could kill UN*X if AT&T wins this suit and essentially holds a strangle hold on UN*X. What good are open/UN*X systems if it becomes an AT&T monopoly? UN*X does *NOT* belong exclusively to AT&T. You seem to believe that the very idea of UN*X does. I guess you'd like to ban Linux ( a free UN*X made without any AT&T code or hint of "AT&T intellectual property", whatever that means) too. Or any other non-AT&T UN*Xs. Oh yeah, they support setuid*, so I guess it really is time to drag out the lawyers. Please give the UN*X community a break! Not all of us are able or willing to spend $150,000 to have UN*X kernel sources! Nor are we willing to be unable to ever do UN*X kernel development. You seem to want AT&T to control all of UN*X. That would be corporate fascism, which is just about as disasterous as communism. *setuid is a patented invention of AT&T or Bellcore or something else crazy like that. The lawyers can get really busy now. I don't have a problem with AT&T controlling their own product. I *DO* have a problem with them controlling/suppressing *other people's products*. This is *supposed* to be a free-market society. Even the formerly communist, former USSR knows that the free market is the way to go.