HDTenEightyP/NetNews huggingface dataset:
From: usenet@crd.ge.com (Required for NNTP)
Newsgroups: alt.suit.att-bsdi,comp.org.eff.talk,misc.legal.software
Subject: BSDI lawsuit
Date: 28 Dec 92 14:17:01 GMT
Organization: GE Corporate R&D Center


  I have a very narrow question about one legal point of the BSDI suit,
which hopefully will not get drawn off into a tangent about economic or
moral issues. My limited understanding of "trade secret" law leads me
to believe that once the cat is out of the bag, it's out. Based on a
single data point, I believe that if someone reveals a trade secret the
original holder can take legal action against the party revealing the
secret, but not against any future users of the information.

  I base this one the fact that every non-disclosure agreement I run
past our lawyers agrees to keep the secret "unless the information shall
become public by other means." When I asked about this some years ago, I
was told that if the information got out it was unprotected except by
secrecy.

  Now, assuming that this is substantially true, *if* USL asserts that
the net/2 release contains trade secret information, does that not mean
that the only cause of action is against UCB, and that anyone can now
make use of the information published in net/2?

  I'd like to get an answer from a lawyer, since my original legal
source passed away several years ago.

-- 
bill davidsen, GE Corp. R&D Center; Box 8; Schenectady NY 12345
    Keyboard controller has been disabled, press F1 to continue.
Newsgroups: alt.suit.att-bsdi,comp.org.eff.talk,comp.org.sug,comp.org.usenix
From: arl@cs.hut.fi (Ari Lemmke)
Subject: Re: Novell buys Unix Systems Laboratory
Organization: Helsinki University of Technology, Finland
	<scs.725032679@wotan.iti.org> <1992Dec23.033508.3126@fcom.cc.utah.edu>
Distribution: alt
Date: Thu, 24 Dec 1992 15:59:24 GMT

In article <1992Dec23.033508.3126@fcom.cc.utah.edu> terry@cs.weber.edu (A Wizard of Earth C) writes:
:	   Both 386BSD and Linux are out of the water if USL wins against UCB,
:   as both are making use of Net/2 code (although 386BSD makes rather more
:   heavy use than Linux) without USL having to fire a shot.  Saying USL is
:   going after 386BSD or Linux is, for the near future, only a potential
:   threat.

	NO NO NO, do _not_ start this thread again.

	Linux kernel is made by Linus Torvalds, not BSD or AT&T.
	[Linus has been using or known unix since '90, he has
	not seen any AT&T or BSD sources (he's not blind;-)].

	PLEASE, _read_ the code then talk again.

	KERNEL != some device drivers. RML (although you can't see me ;-)

:					   Terry Lambert

	arl			// ha ha ha ha ... is the US filled
				// with *s?

Newsgroups: alt.suit.att-bsdi,comp.org.eff.talk,comp.org.sug,comp.org.usenix
From: nomad@watson.ibm.com (Lee `nomaD` Damon)
Subject: Re: Novell buys Unix Systems Laboratory
Date: Wed, 23 Dec 1992 16:38:40 GMT
Distribution: alt
Disclaimer: This posting represents the poster's views, not necessarily those of IBM
Organization: IBM T.J. Watson Research Center

In article <BZS.92Dec22231804@world.std.com> bzs@world.std.com (Barry Shein) writes:
>
>The underlying issue regarding "threats" is what is called a "chilling
>effect on the industry".

Why Barry, you wouldn't be accusing USL of abusing the court system in
an effort at... (dare I even think it?) "Restraint of Trade"? <gasp!>.

hmm... come to think of it, I think I've been saying that all along. I
take back the <gasp>.

nomad
-- 
work: nomad@watson.ibm.com               - Lee "nomad" Damon -         \
play: castle!nomad or nomad@castle.org                                  \
Systems Admin, The Farm, IBM TJ Watson Research Center, Yorktown NY    / \
      U N A S H A M E D                                               /   \
Newsgroups: alt.suit.att-bsdi,comp.org.eff.talk,comp.org.sug,comp.org.usenix
From: terry@cs.weber.edu (A Wizard of Earth C)
Subject: Re: Novell buys Unix Systems Laboratory
Organization: Weber State University  (Ogden, UT)
Distribution: alt
Date: Tue, 22 Dec 92 17:39:39 GMT

In article <1992Dec22.140854.1085@crd.ge.com> davidsen@crd.ge.com (bill davidsen) writes:
>In article <BZS.92Dec21125509@world.std.com>, bzs@world.std.com (Barry Shein) writes:
>| 
>| Announced today on the news, $350M, official announcement 2PM EST,
>| Unix is a trademark of Novell, Inc.
>| 
>| No idea what this portends for the suit against BSDI.
>
>  Why do I have the feeling that the intent is to keep UNIX from
>competing with netware?

Probably because you are unaware that NetWare already runs on UNIX as a
hosted OS called NWU (NetWare for UNUX), formerly PNW (Portable NetWare).
IBM, Sun, HP, Data General, and many other vendors sell products based on
this code.  NetWare and UNIX are in different markets, and NetWare
definitely owns the market it competes in.

>And that the price from other vendors now
>shipping is suddenly going to be as high as netunix, or whatever
>they call the overpriced version from Novell.

1)	It's called "UNIXWare", and it comes from a company called
	"Univel" which is only partially owned by Novell, and you
	have obviously not checked pricing on it... unless by "as
	high" you meant a big drop in price.  Either way, it's
	"from Univel", not "from Novell".

2)	One part of the press release that I have seen publicly
	quoted (so I don't hesitate to repeat it) says "USL's
	commitment to fair and neutral access to UNIX technology
	will not change".  It doesn't sound like I'm going to get
	access to newer source code any time soon.

I think the best strategy (and the one I will follow) is to sit back and
see if the deal goes through, *then* worry (but not about the relatively
meaningless issues you have raised here).


					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
-------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Newsgroups: alt.suit.att-bsdi,comp.org.eff.talk,comp.org.sug,comp.org.usenix
From: bhayden@teal.csn.org (Bruce Hayden)
Subject: Re: Novell buys Unix Systems Laboratory
Organization: Colorado SuperNet, Inc.
Date: Sat, 26 Dec 1992 21:13:35 GMT

dhesi@rahul.net (Rahul Dhesi) writes:

>In <bhayden.725292489@teal> bhayden@teal.csn.org (Bruce Hayden) posts
>the following to a bogus "alt" distribution:

>>One example that
>>is close to mind is Lotus v. Paperback Book. I don't think that Lotus
>>has collected anything yet on that judgment, but it served its purpose -
>>which became obvious when it was used in Lotus v. Borland.

>I thought the same judge presided in both cases, in which case the
>first case could hardly fail to be precedent for the second.

Yes - it was the same judge. My guess is that Lotus filed the
suit in the same district, then suggested that this judge already
knew the subject matter (read - was favorably disposed).
Note also that Lotus filed the Borland case within a week or two
of the Paperback verdict.

It has also been cited in several other cases since then by
parties trying to drastically extend the reach of Copyright law.

>If you read Lotus vs Paperback ruling, you will note that the judge
>appears to be quite biased, going so far as scolding the defending
>attorneys for playing "word games".

My impression is that the "word games" were arguments such as that
copyright protection doesn't extend to functional aspects of the
program. In any case, I agree, the judge appears to have been
strongly biased against Paperback Book (or actually as we found
out stongly in favor of Lotus).
 
Bruce E. Hayden
(303) 758-8400
bhayden@csn.org

Newsgroups: alt.suit.att-bsdi,comp.org.eff.talk,comp.org.sug,comp.org.usenix
From: bzs@world.std.com (Barry Shein)
Subject: Re: Novell buys Unix Systems Laboratory
Organization: The World
	<BZS.92Dec24225730@world.std.com>
	<1992Dec26.230001.3043@fcom.cc.utah.edu>
Distribution: alt
Date: Sat, 26 Dec 1992 23:53:37 GMT


From: terry@cs.weber.edu (A Wizard of Earth C) [responding to me]
>>All that was required, from USL's point of view, was that you hold an
>>appropriate source license from USL (or, earlier, WECO/AT&T.)
>
>Actually, the comapnies you have named hold such licenses and are therefore
>not actionable (on those grounds).

Yes, but you were making a commercial/non-commercial distinction in
regards to who could use BSD/CSRG's work which is what I was
responding to, there is no such distinction from the point of view of
UCB/BSD/CSRG, only from USL/ATT (in that the Unix source licenses
would be different, mostly in cost tho holders of non-commercial
licenses can't resell etc.)

>>There was never any line drawn in regards to commercial/non-commercial
>>for UCB.
>
>I disagree.  Examine the text of the original 32V licenses from WECO.

Well, what distinction are you alluding to? Your point originally was
that UCB/CSRG could not deliver code to commercial entities, I say
that is false as stated. If your point is now that UCB/CSRG themselves
could not sell software covered under their 32V license well, then so
what? That's never been an issue, has it? They didn't sell it
(whatever charges they had were considered cost-recovery which was
ok.) It's the recipient's license that is important at that point,
that's why Sun/DEC/et-al can resell what they get from CSRG but, I
dunno, Podunk University cannot (assuming PU has an academic source
license.)

>>USL had different prices for source licenses for those various types of
>>customers, but that's irrelevant to what you're claiming.
>
>It's relevant... UCB quit licensing after 32V *because* of the terms of
>the licenses.

Yes, the newer licenses, that's probably true (I think we're all only
inferring this from their actions, but we probably agree on that
inference.)

But I think you need to be a little clearer about what conclusion you
are drawing from this.

-- 
        -Barry Shein

Software Tool & Die    | bzs@world.std.com          | uunet!world!bzs
Purveyors to the Trade | Voice: 617-739-0202        | Login: 617-739-WRLD
Xref: sparky alt.suit.att-bsdi:734 comp.org.eff.talk:8119
From: edguer@ces.cwru.edu (Aydin Edguer)
Newsgroups: alt.suit.att-bsdi,comp.org.eff.talk
Subject: Re: BSDI lawsuit
Date: 28 Dec 1992 23:21:27 GMT
Organization: Computer Engineering and Science, Case Western Reserve University
Distribution: inet
NNTP-Posting-Host: charlie.ces.cwru.edu

In article <1992Dec28.141701.25015@crd.ge.com> davidsen@ariel.crd.GE.COM (bill davidsen) writes:
>  Now, assuming that this is substantially true, *if* USL asserts that
>the net/2 release contains trade secret information, does that not mean
>that the only cause of action is against UCB, and that anyone can now
>make use of the information published in net/2?

If USL was *only* asserting a violation of the non-disclosure of trade secret
information, this would be true.  USL however is not limiting itself to trade
secret law and in fact does not refer to it explicitly in the initial
complaint.

According to the USL April 20, 1992 complaint:
	25. ...
	among other things, the "Networking Release 2" referred to therein
	contains software code that was copied from, based upon, or derived
	from, code licensed to the Regents by AT&T, such that any operating
	system derived from "Networking Release 2" requires a license from
	AT&T or its successor, USL.

Notice that there is no mention of trade secrets, copyrights, or patents.
USL instead refers to the licensing agreement between Berkeley and AT&T.

	11. Pursuant to agreement with AT&T, the Regents of the
	University of California (the "Regents") have been authorized to
	distribute to third parties certain works derived from UNIX system
	software subject to various restrictions intended to protect and
	preserve AT&T's proprietary rights thereto. Those restrictions
	include a requirement limiting such distribution to persons who
	have also acquired licenses from AT&T or USL.

The USL July 24, 1992 complaint does enlarge upon this language:

	2. USL seeks... to... permanently enjoin the Regents...
	from developing, promoting, reproducing, and distributing computer
	software products which are based upon, copied from, or derived
	from USL's proprietary and copyrighted UNIX operating system software,
	except as authorized by agreements between the Regents and USL....

        6. Substantial portions of the source code embodied
	in the Networking Release 2 software and its BSDI derivative,
	BSD/386 Source, are based upon, substantially copied from or
	derived from original UNIX(R) system source code disclosed in
	confidence to the Regents under restrictive license agreements.

So USL is claiming copyright violations.  Note the reference to
"in confidence" does appear to refer to trade secrets, but that they
have not limited themselves to only trade secret violations.  Unless
and until the case is either settled or USL states the category of 
violation for each piece of code in question, people should not make
assumptions about the use of the information contained in net/2 code.

Aydin Edguer
Not a lawyer
Xref: sparky alt.suit.att-bsdi:691 comp.org.eff.talk:7944 comp.org.sug:541 comp.org.usenix:1116
From: haynes@cats.ucsc.edu (Jim Haynes)
Newsgroups: alt.suit.att-bsdi,comp.org.eff.talk,comp.org.sug,comp.org.usenix
Subject: Re: Novell buys Unix Systems Laboratory
Date: 22 Dec 1992 20:16:08 GMT
Organization: University of California; Santa Cruz
Distribution: alt
NNTP-Posting-Host: hobbes.ucsc.edu


In article <BzoFny.19x@cup.hp.com> raj@cup.hp.com (Rick Jones) writes:
>I heard this quote on the net and thought it sounded very thought provoking:
>> >      For some time we have seen an opportunity to help unify and 
>> > purify UNIX.  Increasingly customers around the world are using 
>I particularly liked the word "purify..." :?
Somehow that sounds like "ethnic cleansing..."
-- 
haynes@cats.ucsc.edu
haynes@cats.bitnet

"Ya can talk all ya wanna, but it's dif'rent than it was!"
"No it aint!  But ya gotta know the territory!"
        Meredith Willson: "The Music Man"

Xref: sparky alt.suit.att-bsdi:681 comp.org.eff.talk:7916 comp.org.sug:529 comp.org.usenix:1105
From: neil@cadreor.cadre.com (Neil W. Van Dyke)
Newsgroups: alt.suit.att-bsdi,comp.org.eff.talk,comp.org.sug,comp.org.usenix
Subject: Re: Novell buys Unix Systems Laboratory
Date: 22 Dec 92 06:35:42 GMT
Article-I.D.: cadreor.1992Dec22.063542.25302
Organization: Cadre Technologies, Inc., Portland Operation
X-Newsreader: Tin 1.1 PL5

Barry Shein (bzs@world.std.com) wrote:
> Announced today on the news, $350M, official announcement 2PM EST,
> Unix is a trademark of Novell, Inc.
> 
> No idea what this portends for the suit against BSDI.

Things should be interesting.

Hmm...  Maybe we'll be seeing a commercial Plan 9 release soon...

-- 
Neil W. Van Dyke <> neil@cadre.com <> neil@cse.ogi.edu <> +1 503 690 1300
"My employer disclaims that I even work for them, much less speak for them."
Xref: sparky alt.suit.att-bsdi:712 comp.org.eff.talk:8039 comp.org.sug:564 comp.org.usenix:1140
From: tal@Warren.MENTORG.COM (Tom Limoncelli)
Newsgroups: alt.suit.att-bsdi,comp.org.eff.talk,comp.org.sug,comp.org.usenix
Subject: Re: Novell buys Unix Systems Laboratory
Date: 21 Dec 1992 23:14:32 -0500
Organization: Mentor Graphics -- IC Group
Distribution: alt
NNTP-Posting-Host: sdl.warren.mentorg.com

The official Novell press release is message-ID
<brian.66.0@SJF.Novell.COM>.

ClariNet has had two articles so far.  The UPI wire reported it out of
their New Jersey office as message-ID <novellU2DL220pe@clarinet.com>
and the News Bytes wire service reported it out of their Utah office in
message-id <NB921221.21@clarinet.com>.

I'm not associated with Novell, ClariNet, UPI, or News Bytes.  I just
thought people might want to find the articles directly.

Tom
-- 
Tom Limoncelli -- tal@warren.mentorg.com (work) -- tal@plts.uucp (play)

Unix is a trademark of, WHATT????
Newsgroups: alt.suit.att-bsdi,comp.org.eff.talk,comp.org.sug,comp.org.usenix
From: brad@clarinet.com (Brad Templeton)
Subject: Re: Novell buys Unix Systems Laboratory
Organization: ClariNet Communications Corp.
Distribution: alt
Date: Tue, 22 Dec 1992 21:27:07 GMT

I expect that AT&T sold USL because of all the people who were boycotting
AT&T Long Distance services because of their suit against BSDI.  :-)
-- 
Brad Templeton, ClariNet Communications Corp. -- Sunnyvale, CA 408/296-0366
Newsgroups: alt.suit.att-bsdi,comp.org.eff.talk,misc.legal.software
From: tenney@netcom.com (Glenn S. Tenney)
Subject: Re: BSDI lawsuit
Organization: Netcom - Online Communication Services (408 241-9760 guest)
Date: Wed, 30 Dec 1992 06:46:35 GMT

In article <scs.725650326@wotan.iti.org> scs@iti.org (Steve Simmons) writes:
> ...
>Close but no cigar (and our corporate lawyer backs me up on this point).
>Once a trade secret has become publicly known, it is no longer trade
>secret.  So the original poster is correct -- once the cat is out of
>the bag it's out, and anyone can make use of the former trade secret.

You're close too, but no cigar yet...  This is not just about trade secret
law.  This is also about CONTRACT law.  And UCB agreed to certain
specific terms.  If they agreed to not do something, then even
if AT&T later releases it to the world, UCB would probably (this
was from an IP lawyer I used back then) still be bound by their
contract UNLESS the contract gave them an out -- if the contract
said something to the effect that they would not be bound if the
information was later released without those restraints.

>...
>Please note that trade secret and copyright are two entirely different
>kettles of fish.  Assuming the sVr4 source code is copyright USL, the
>act of publishing described above would abrogate any trade secrets
>but would leave the copyright intact.  Thus you could learn from the
>code and write your own, but not use *that specific code*.

You are quite correct about the difference between copyright and trade
secret.  BUT, you are not neccessarily correct that you can learn from
some code and write your own without violating a copyright.  That's been
the subject of many recent cases and some have found that to be a
copyright infringement -- so people should not rely on your last sentence
above as being correct.


-- 
Glenn Tenney
voice: (415) 574-3420      fax: (415) 574-0546
tenney@netcom.com          Ham radio: AA6ER
Newsgroups: alt.suit.att-bsdi,comp.org.eff.talk,comp.org.sug,comp.org.usenix
From: terry@cs.weber.edu (A Wizard of Earth C)
Subject: Re: Novell buys Unix Systems Laboratory
Organization: Weber State University  (Ogden, UT)
Distribution: alt
Date: Wed, 23 Dec 92 03:35:08 GMT

In article <scs.725032679@wotan.iti.org> scs@iti.org (Steve Simmons) writes:
[ ... the USL "IT'S UNIX" BSDI lawsuit ... ]
>But will they make changes?  Novell undoubtably knows what the revenue
>stream from UNIX licences is.  If BSDI/Jolix (yes, I'm sure that Jolix
>is the next target) get a full-functioned commercial-grade UNIX
>out there that interrupts that license stream, that revenue will begin
>to decline quickly.

	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).

	I also do not believe shareware/freeware/copyleftware is a commercial
threat to USL (no matter who owns them) in any case.  People license for
many reasons, not the least of which is commercial support.  The most likely
prospect for commercial support in this arena is Linux, from GNU-style
support companies.

	Both 386BSD and Linux are out of the water if USL wins against UCB,
as both are making use of Net/2 code (although 386BSD makes rather more
heavy use than Linux) without USL having to fire a shot.  Saying USL is
going after 386BSD or Linux is, for the near future, only a potential
threat.


					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:686 comp.org.eff.talk:7924 comp.org.sug:532 comp.org.usenix:1108
From: davidsen@ariel.crd.GE.COM (william E Davidsen)
Newsgroups: alt.suit.att-bsdi,comp.org.eff.talk,comp.org.sug,comp.org.usenix
Subject: Re: Novell buys Unix Systems Laboratory
Date: 22 Dec 92 14:08:54 GMT
Reply-To: davidsen@crd.ge.com (bill davidsen)
Distribution: alt
Organization: GE Corporate R&D Center, Schenectady NY

In article <BZS.92Dec21125509@world.std.com>, bzs@world.std.com (Barry Shein) writes:
| 
| Announced today on the news, $350M, official announcement 2PM EST,
| Unix is a trademark of Novell, Inc.
| 
| No idea what this portends for the suit against BSDI.

  Why do I have the feeling that the intent is to keep UNIX from
competing with netware? And that the price from other vendors now
shipping is suddenly going to be as high as netunix, or whatever
they call the overpriced version from Novell.

-- 
bill davidsen, GE Corp. R&D Center; Box 8; Schenectady NY 12345
    Keyboard controller has been disabled, press F1 to continue.
Newsgroups: alt.suit.att-bsdi,comp.org.eff.talk,comp.org.sug,comp.org.usenix
From: bzs@world.std.com (Barry Shein)
Subject: Re: Novell buys Unix Systems Laboratory
Organization: The World
	<scs.725032679@wotan.iti.org> <1992Dec23.033508.3126@fcom.cc.utah.edu>
Distribution: alt
Date: Wed, 23 Dec 1992 04:18:04 GMT


From: terry@cs.weber.edu (A Wizard of Earth C)
>	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).

Sorry to burst your bubble, but the reason the University of
California has also been named in the suit is because the issue is
whether or not the original Net2 release distributed by UCB (which
both BSDI and Jolix are derived from) contained code proprietary to
USL.

I do not believe that USL has claimed that BSDI has *added* any
proprietary code to their product, only that the Net2 code it derives
from always contained such code. So the same would be true for Jolix.

>	Both 386BSD and Linux are out of the water if USL wins against UCB,
>as both are making use of Net/2 code (although 386BSD makes rather more
>heavy use than Linux) without USL having to fire a shot.  Saying USL is
>going after 386BSD or Linux is, for the near future, only a potential
>threat.

Sure, it's only around a 99.9% probability...

I think some of your assumptions need re-examination.

I don't think "rather more heavy use" will make much difference, thus
far offering to replace tainted code has not been acceptable.

The underlying issue regarding "threats" is what is called a "chilling
effect on the industry".

Would you put up your house to start a business entirely dependant on
Linux or Jolix right now? Would you expect to be able to talk someone
else into investing in a company based on this situation?

Let's not try to wish away what is going on here.

-- 
        -Barry Shein

Software Tool & Die    | bzs@world.std.com          | uunet!world!bzs
Purveyors to the Trade | Voice: 617-739-0202        | Login: 617-739-WRLD
Newsgroups: alt.suit.att-bsdi,comp.org.eff.talk,misc.legal.software,misc.legal