From: terry@cs.weber.edu (A Wizard of Earth C)
Newsgroups: alt.suit.att-bsdi,comp.org.eff.talk,comp.org.sug,comp.org.usenix
Subject: Re: Novell buys Unix Systems Laboratory
Date: 25 Dec 92 02:15:16 GMT
Distribution: alt
Organization: University of Utah Computer Center

In article <scs.725118848@wotan.iti.org>, scs@iti.org (Steve Simmons) writes:
|> terry@cs.weber.edu (A Wizard of Earth C) writes:
|> 
|> >In article <scs.725032679@wotan.iti.org> scs@iti.org (Steve Simmons) writes:
|> 
|> >>If BSDI/Jolix (yes, I'm sure that Jolix is the next target) get a
|> >>full-functioned commercial-grade UNIX out there that interrupts
|> >>[revenue from UNIX licences I think Novell/USL will sue]
|> 
|> >	This, I believe, is hogwash... I don't think 386BSD will be targeted
|> >unless it contains USL sources like BSDI is purported to (not true of 386BSD
|> >in my opinion).
|> 
|> You wash your hogs and I'll wash mine :-).
|> 
|> Please read the claims from USL against UCB.  They can be read to say
|> that the BSD networking release contains USL code (whether copyright or
|> trade secret is hard to say, but they say it's theirs).  Thus if BSDI
|> is ruled contaminated *on those grounds*, Jolix is contaminated.  Period.

I have read them; I don't believe this is the interpretation that will be
used, if only because it establishes a single source for UNIX itself -- a
bad thing for future government contracts.  I find the following to be much
more likely:

|> Note that BSDI could lose the suit on other grounds -- for example, the
|> judge could rule that the BSD networking release is neither trade
|> secret nor copyright.  But he could then say that the BSDI principals
|> used their knowledge of the trade-secret/copyright USL code to write
|> the missing modules, and therefore are in violation.  In that case, BSD
|> Net is free but the Jolix folks are under the same threat -- did they
|> use trade-secret/copyright USL code to write the missing modules?

I feel that this would be harder to prove, but is probably the tack that
will be taken.  I agree that this would put 386BSD in the same jeapordy;
my opinion is that it wouldn't stick... plus it would require a judgement
against BSDI -- not a foregone conclusion, and not yet resolved.

|> Why hasn't USL sued the Jolitzes?  It is a reasonable strategy to pick
|> one target first, establish your case, then go on to the others.
|> Soderholm proved this works quite well with his token-ring suit against
|> IBM.

I don't feel this is true; if nothing else, the Jolitzes are an easier
(fiscally) target, and would prove a valuable case (if successful) in
establishing the required preponderance of evidence against BSDI (who are
fiscally capable of a much larger defense).

A judgement against UCB would effectively be a defacto judgement against
all users of the Net/2 code -- BSD/386, 386BSD, etc.  The real question is
why go after BSDI at all, if their only offense was use of the UCB code?
The only conceivable answer is that their alleged civil offenses must
include some infringement that the alleged UCB infringement does not.
This may not be something shared by either 386BSD or Linux.

I would like to see the written texts of the recently filed arguments by
all parties; barring that, I (and you) will have to wait and see.


					Terry Lambert
					terry@icarus.weber.edu
---
Any opinions in this posting are my own and not those of my present
or previous employers.
-------------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                        "I have an 8 user poetic license" - me
 Get the 386bsd FAQ from agate.berkeley.edu:/pub/386BSD/386bsd-0.1/unofficial
-------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Xref: sparky alt.suit.att-bsdi:680 comp.org.eff.talk:7912 comp.org.sug:528 comp.org.usenix:1104