Return to BSD News archive
Path: sserve!manuel.anu.edu.au!munnari.oz.au!sgiblab!spool.mu.edu!uwm.edu!linac!uchinews!mimsy!jds From: jds@cs.umd.edu (James da Silva) Newsgroups: comp.unix.bsd,alt.suit.att-bsdi Subject: Update on the USL Lawsuit Message-ID: <62619@mimsy.umd.edu> Date: 6 Dec 92 17:44:17 GMT Sender: news@mimsy.umd.edu Followup-To: alt.suit.att-bsdi Organization: University of Maryland, Department of Computer Science Lines: 123 Well, those friendly "journalists" at Unigram have been at it again. Remember them? They're the ones who this summer characterised the BSD community as a "drug-happy, hippy-freak Unix culture" and the net uproar over the lawsuit as "naive tech weenies ready to form a lynch mob". Following is a BSDI statement that responds to a recent Unigram article and gives an update on recent events on the legal front. Disclaimer: I am not affiliated with BSDI in any way, I'm just posting this because I think it is important to get real information out rather than FUD rumors. The above opinions are mine, the BSDI statement is below. Jaime ............................................................................. : Stand on my shoulders, : jds@cs.umd.edu : James da Silva : not on my toes. : uunet!mimsy!jds : Systems Design & Analysis Group -------- Forwarded Message Date: Fri, 4 Dec 92 22:27:09 MST From: kolstad@BSDI.COM (Rob Kolstad) Subject: A note about the Unigram article To: beta@BSDI.COM Yesterday, the unigram article reproduced below was posted to this list with a query about whether it was true or not. Our management and attorneys have worked through the day and have the response I've included below. RK ==================================================================== /\ Rob Kolstad Berkeley Software Design, Inc. /\/ \ kolstad@bsdi.com 7759 Delmonico Drive / \ \ 719-593-9445 Colorado Springs, CO 80919 ==================================================================== ---------------------------------------------------------------------- unigram#413 BSD/386 DISTRIBUTION HALTED A US federal judge has prohibited Berkeley Software Design Inc from distributing production or updated pre-production versions of its BSD/386 operating system to anyone anywhere. BSD/386, which the company may distribute in its current pre-production or beta state, is the centrepiece of the lawsuit Unix System Laboratories has filed against BSDI charging it with copyright infringement and misappropriation of trade secrets (UX No 396). The ruling came after BSDI asked the court to postpone a hearing on a motion for a preliminary injunction against it made by USL. USL is asking the court for a preliminary injunction forbidding BSDI from distributing any of its BSD/386 software hoping that as a result of the anticipated trial the courts will make it permanent. The hearing has been moved from December 14 to January 25. Response: Unigram has again published an extremely slanted article based loosely on the actual facts. It is unclear what ties Unigram has with USL, but as always, Unigram continues to present only the USL version of reality and makes no attempt to determine the actual facts or to even ask for an opposing viewpoint. In a presumably unrelated coincidence, USL has produced documents at BSDI depositions that bear the Unigram fax header line. The facts relevant to this issue are that on November 12th, USL served a notice that they had filed a motion for preliminary injunctive relief. The motion named a hearing date of December 14, 1992. BSDI's response to USL's motion was due 14 calendar days before the hearing or November 30, 1992. Because of the Thanksgiving Holidays (a coincidence of course...) this only allowed nine business days to respond to USL's lengthy brief that they had had eight months to prepare. USL's motion asks that BSDI be ordered to stop shipping all products, recall all copies already shipped and cease all development on the product "until the final determination of this action", which is probably at least a year away - i.e., to shut down BSDI and put them out of business. USL's action at this time (eight months after the original complaint) is puzzling. They claim they will suffer immediate and irreversible harm if BSDI is allowed to continue shipping. Yet, BSDI has been shipping a product based on NET2 since December, 1991. Further, the NET2 code that is principally at issue continues to be available for anonymous ftp on over 66 sites, to be made available on various CD-ROM distributions and to be incorporated in 386BSD. With this motion, USL for the first time, has provided details of what intellectual property has been allegedly violated. However, they have designated that material as their confidential technical information so that it may only be shown to the attorneys and outside experts - not the BSDI employees who are best qualified to rebut their claims. By pressing the issue now, when they have had eight months to prepare their case, and only now giving any specifics regarding the alleged violation, USL is forcing BSDI to respond in a hurried, less than fully prepared manner. To allow more time to respond to USL's lengthy and presumably well prepared motion, BSDI VOLUNTARILY offered to delay shipping the production release of its software in order to postpone the hearing date until January 25, 1993. The judge accepted BSDI's offer and adjourned the hearing six weeks to allow BSDI to more fully prepare its opposition to USl's motion. BSDI is explicitly permitted to continue shipping the preproduction releases that it was already shipping and BSDI continues to do that. BSDI continues to support its customers and operates business as usual. BSDI continues to have no access to any specifics of its alleged violations. -------- End of Forwarded Message