*BSD News Article 3467


Return to BSD News archive

Path: sserve!manuel!munnari.oz.au!uunet!cis.ohio-state.edu!pacific.mps.ohio-state.edu!linac!att!rutgers!fdurt1.fdu.edu!wisdom.bubble.org!sugra!ken
From: ken@sugra.uucp (Kenneth Ng)
Newsgroups: alt.suit.att-bsdi,comp.unix.bsd
Subject: Re: UNIGRAM's article on the USL-BSDI suit
Message-ID: <1992Aug11.013001.5139@sugra.uucp>
Date: 11 Aug 92 01:30:01 GMT
References: <KANDALL.92Aug4161214@globalize.nsg.sgi.com: <1992Aug7.200342.13878@Warren.MENTORG.COM>
Organization: Private Computer, Totowa NJ
Lines: 46

In article <1992Aug7.200342.13878@Warren.MENTORG.COM:, tal@Warren.MENTORG.COM (Tom Limoncelli) writes:
: I think Bill Davidsen's analogy is the best so far, at least
: it agrees the best with how I interpret all the documents
: published so far.
: >This is the crux of the matter, I think: Was it a block-by-block
: >replacement, was it a new design meeting the same specs, or a hybrid?
: I predict this is what the lawsuit will be about.  Most likely it will
: define the fine line that can be the difference between "block-by-block
: replacement" and "a new design meeting the same specs" and decide if
: the former is legal.  (the later is legal if you are Phoenix, but not
: if you are Lotus, but that's another story).

To throw yet another wrinkle into the soup, what about a new design meeting
new specs that are a superset of the old specs?  Several times I have been
given the task of taking programs that have been modified umteen times, with
all kinds of patches and tweaks and additions put into it (including tweaks
that removed other tweaks), and given the task of adding yet another change.
After spending a week trying to analysize the routines, I give up, write up
a black box specification, and then reimplement the beast, or part of the
beast.  Along the way I clean up the interface, make it more general
purpose, and expand various facilities.  By the time I am done, the program
has the added facilities, runs faster, is structured better, and has fewer
bugs.  Now, who does this program belong to?  The original person?  Myself?
The summation of everyone who has ever seen the code?

Back to the house analogy, lets say the original was a straw house.  At what
point do should the original person loose their patent on invent the house?
When I make it of wood?  Of brick?  When I add running water?  Electricity?
Indoor carpeting?  A kitchen?  Oven?  Microwave and other appliances?  Solar
heating?  Weatherstripping?  How about an apartment building?  A skyscraper?
How about proposed Space Station Freedom?  Yes, it is still a house, but to
say it belongs exclusively to the original housebuilder, and that everything
in the new houses belongs to the original housebuilder is silly.

If AT&T is to keep their stranglehold on UNIX(R), I submit that they are
a monopoly and should be made a public utility just like water, gas, and
electricity.  I have little objection to AT&T keeping their trademark,
and if they do nothing to improve their product and just want to make money.
But I take *GREAT* exception to anyone trying to establish a defacto
monopoly and engaging in torpedoing the competition in a manor almost as
disgusting as Apple and Microsoft.

-- 
Kenneth Ng
Please reply to kdn5669@hertz.njit.edu for now.
Apple and AT&T lawsuits: Just say NO!