Return to BSD News archive
Path: sserve!manuel!munnari.oz.au!samsung!nighthawk.clearpoint.com!transfer!m2c!bu.edu!rpi!usc!cs.utexas.edu!rutgers!spcvxb.spc.edu!terry
From: terry@spcvxb.spc.edu (Terry Kennedy, Operations Mgr.)
Newsgroups: comp.unix.bsd
Subject: Re: The USL complaint.
Message-ID: <1992Aug6.062607.3507@spcvxb.spc.edu>
Date: 6 Aug 92 10:26:07 GMT
References: <1992Aug5.092033.18897@kth.se> <15pmi7INNpns@agate.berkeley.edu> <KANDALL.92Aug6140527@globalize.nsg.sgi.com>
Organization: St. Peter's College, US
Lines: 46
In article <KANDALL.92Aug6140527@globalize.nsg.sgi.com>, kandall@nsg.sgi.com (Michael Kandall) writes:
> If I opened a refreshment company and sold a beverage called "Coke"
> (or any product called Coke), and got sued by Coca-Cola Corp, would
> anyone call Coca-Cola Corp "spiteful". They would say getting
> sued would be natural common-sense.
>
> When it comes to UNIX a whole different set of standards seem to
> apply.
Not at all. Infringement needs to prosecuted in a vigorous and timely manner.
I think what people are saying is that the current suit was not filed in such
a timely manner. Considering the age of the Net 1 and 2 releases, and the fact
that Berkeley has used the term "Unix" to describe various BSD releases dating
from at least the 2BSD & 3BSD days, it is my opinion that the USL claim fails
to be timely.
Note that terms like aspirin, escalator, and zipper used to be trademarks,
but were lost due to not taking timely action to protect them. Trademarks can
also be lost by the holder not indicating that they are trademarks. I have
several public AT&T documents which use the term Unix but do not state that it
is a trademark.
Further, note that BSDI's literature only states once that their product is
a "Berkely UNIX"-like system.
In my opinion, USL is trying every possible action in the hope that one or
more will be successful. One of the other actions, claiming misappropriation
of technology, should be easy to prove or disprove based on the Net 2 release
that BSDI started with. There is no need for obtaining snapshots from CSRG -
the code is out for public scrutiny. USL should indicate exactly which modules
in Net 2 they think are misapproprated from USL. The fact that they are not
doing so indicates that either:
a) they haven't actually examined the code
b) they found one or more instances where something slipped by, and want to
try to convince a court that the whole package is contaminated, in a "sur-
prise move".
Normally, the way for USL to handle this would be to make a request to CSRG
asking CSRG to remove the specific contested modules. If agreement could not\
be reached, _then_ it goes to the courts. I have seen no evidence that USL made
any such good-faith attempts.
Terry Kennedy Operations Manager, Academic Computing
terry@spcvxa.bitnet St. Peter's College, Jersey City, NJ USA
terry@spcvxa.spc.edu +1 201 915 9381