Return to BSD News archive
Received: by minnie.vk1xwt.ampr.org with NNTP id AA6943 ; Fri, 15 Jan 93 10:39:41 EST Xref: sserve comp.org.eff.talk:11612 comp.unix.bsd:10053 comp.unix.wizards:28233 comp.org.usenix:3097 Path: sserve!manuel.anu.edu.au!munnari.oz.au!uunet!cs.utexas.edu!torn!nott!cunews!revcan!ecicrl!clewis From: clewis@ferret.ocunix.on.ca (Chris Lewis) Newsgroups: alt.suit.att-bsdi,comp.org.eff.talk,comp.unix.bsd,comp.unix.wizards,comp.org.usenix Subject: Re: BSDI/USL Lawsuit -- More Bad News for Human Beings... Message-ID: <4142@ecicrl.ocunix.on.ca> Date: 17 Jan 93 05:45:53 GMT References: <BETSYS.93Jan15143516@ra.cs.umb.edu> <1j7f5rINNqvn@ftp.UU.NET> <RLK.93Jan15222313@underprize.think.com> Followup-To: alt.suit.att-bsdi Organization: Elegant Communications Inc., Ottawa, Canada Lines: 68 In article <RLK.93Jan15222313@underprize.think.com> rlk@underprize.think.com (Robert Krawitz) writes: >In article <1j7f5rINNqvn@ftp.UU.NET> sef@Kithrup.COM (Sean Eric Fagan) writes: > In article <BETSYS.93Jan15143516@ra.cs.umb.edu> betsys@cs.umb.edu (Elizabeth Schwartz) writes: > >(4) preliminarily enjoining and restraining BSDI, its > >officers, agents, employees, servants, and all persons > >in active concert or participation with them, from > >employing, authorizing or otherwise allowing any person > >who has had access to UNIX operating system source code > >or any works, notes, memoranda, or other records, > >copied from, based upon, or derived from such software, > >disclosed to such person or his employer in confidence, > >to participate on behalf of BSDI in the development of > >source code for a multi-user computer operating system, > >during the pendency of this action; > The fun part about that, which I don't know how many people have > recognized or admitted, is that the Bach abd BSD books fall under > the category of "works, noted, memoranda" "copied from, based upon, > or derived from" the USL code. >It does say "disclosed to such person or his employer in confidence", >which would seem to rule that out. Nonetheless, this *is* nasty... While reading the Bach/BSD books wouldn't get you contaminated, it is still *very* broad coverage. Not only is this going to cover anybody ever having worked with UNIX source (which would include older BSD releases, and *present* releases because USL is insisting that BSD freed sources are USL's IP, plus Xenix, plus older AIXes etc. etc. etc.), it'd also probably include large chunks of each University's CS community. It'd also cause some, er, interesting, problems inside AT&T/Bell Labs itself. [Can you imagine AT&T/Bell Labs no longer being able to work on Plan 9? I mean, after all, I think those guys have had some exposure to UNIX source ;-)] I'd be "contaminated" in several different ways: V5/V6/V7 graduate student kernel hacking, BSD 4.[12], SIII, PWB, SV and Xenix source at several companies. In spite of the fact that I've not had access to source for 4 or 5 years. I've had a little exposure to stuff such as this. When one of my employers, a manufacturer of 680x0-based Xenix systems, decided to fold, it attempted to enjoin the soon to be ex-employees from working for any of their customers (not competitors!) for a period of 3 years - which included almost all of the big corporations here. It would have made it extremely difficult for me to get a job. I consulted a lawyer expert in such matters, and he said not to worry because it "constituted a clear intent to deprive me of the ability to earn a living", and would be summarily thrown out. He also said, while there are some situations where a company can enjoin you from working from their competitors for a year or three based on IP, the courts take a very dim view of overbroad restrictions (the USL/BSDI ones would apply in two ways - being in violation of the 3 year limit, and also being so indiscriminate), and will consider such drastic impairments of an individual's employability to be unacceptable and would be disallowed. My understanding is that the situation in the US is roughly comparable. It's a bit scary, because USL might have the wherewithall to get it made permanent, and extend it elsewhere. But in order to do this, they'd have to violate existing precident (ie: Amdahl, 3 year limits) in the USA. And violate precident and the various provincial employment standards acts in Canada too (unless I had a bout of insanity and decided to emmigrate to the USA ;-) So I'm not panicking. Yet. -- Chris Lewis; clewis@ferret.ocunix.on.ca; Phone: Canada 613 832-0541 Psroff 3.0 info: psroff-request@ferret.ocunix.on.ca Ferret list: ferret-request@ferret.ocunix.on.ca