Return to BSD News archive
Path: sserve!manuel!munnari.oz.au!hp9000.csc.cuhk.hk!uakari.primate.wisc.edu!doug.cae.wisc.edu!umn.edu!paperboy.micro.umn.edu!magnus.acs.ohio-state.edu!sample.eng.ohio-state.edu!purdue!sjc
From: sjc@cs.purdue.EDU (Steve Chapin)
Newsgroups: comp.unix.bsd
Subject: Re: AT&T vs. BSDI --> 4.3BSD-NET2 distribution requires AT&T license!!!
Message-ID: <19211@ector.cs.purdue.edu>
Date: 7 Aug 92 07:37:10 GMT
References: <l6nibgINNje6@neuro.usc.edu> <QeTP0wq00iUyM68Gwo@andrew.cmu.edu>
Sender: news@cs.purdue.EDU
Organization: Department of Computer Science, Purdue University
Lines: 17
An unknown (to me) author wrote:
}} >Further, AT&T's question about the time investment of BSDI in bringing out
}} >their product [compared with their own cost over many years] will likely go
}} >a long way toward supporting their unfair competition claim. If it took a
}} >small company like BSDI only a couple of years with a small team of people
}} >to produce BSD/386 vs the multi year investment of a corporate giant - then
}} >it is very possible AT&T may prevail on the unfair competition claim.
The silly part of this is that BSDI didn't write all of BSD/386 in the
last year. They wrote the part that wasn't in NET/2. Let's see, we
have all the time put in by the Berkeley folks, too...
sjc@cs.purdue.edu Steve Chapin Today's Grammar Lesson:
Let's hope the usher lets us in.
"Oh my God! I shot my eye out!" (Ralphie Parker, in "A Christmas Story")