From: friedman@gnu.ai.mit.edu (Noah Friedman)
Newsgroups: gnu.misc.discuss
Subject: Re: What is LPF position on AT&T v. BSDI?
Date: 28 Jul 92 14:11:24 GMT
Organization: Free Software Foundation, 675 Mass Ave. Cambridge, MA 02139
In-reply-to: jeffrey@algor2.algorists.com's message of 24 Jul 92 02:00:23 GMT

Note that I am not a board member of the LPF, so I cannot make official
claims about LPF policy, but I did talk to some board members about some of
the following issues. 


In article <1992Jul24.020023.10999@algor2.algorists.com> jeffrey@algor2.algorists.com (Jeffrey Kegler) writes:
>Specific questions:
>
>1) I assume the LPF has no opinion on the matter of the status of the
>trademark on the term "UNIX".  Is this right?
>
>2) I assume the LPF has no opinion on the matter of whether BSDI can
>use 800-ITS-UNIX as its phone number.  Is this right?

   Correct on both counts.  The LPF is not concerned with trademark issues
in general.

>3) From reading the legal docs, AT&T, while not alleging any trade secret,
>copyright or patent rights in BSDI's software, leaves open the possibility
>of expanding the suit to allege such.  I assume that if they "clarify"
>their position to indicate they do not intend to assert such rights,
>instead restricting themselves to trademark and false advertizing issues,
>untainted by other intellectual property issues, LPF will take no position
>on the matter of AT&T v. BSDI.  Is that correct?

   If USL ultimately claims that BSDI merely violated copyright laws with
respect to actual source code, rather than interface or architectural
issues, then it won't be an issue that the LPF is concerned with.

   USL's second major claim seems to be (as I understand it) that the
some of the contents of the public net2 release were derived from
proprietary AT&T code.  UCB did indeed have an ATT source license, and at
least one member of BSDI (Mike Karels) did some of the work to replace the
proprietary parts.  USL might think they have a case if the rewritten code
is very similar to the original---e.g. if all the algorithms are roughly
the same.

   USL has been very, very vague about exactly what proprietary rights have
actually been violated.  And so far they haven't filed any complaints
against the Regents of UCB (who, if such rights have actually been
violated, seem like they should be more responsible than BSDI).

   Perhaps CSRG made a mistake by not using "clean room" techniques to
replace the proprietary parts of the software, since proving that the code
isn't a direct derivation may now be more difficult.  I can't say, since
I've never seen any AT&T source (beyond that of some of their shell scripts
and header files).  Using such methods is generally slower and more
expensive, and given how small CSRG is I can understand why they chose not
to do that.

>1)  You (BSDI) claim you are distributing UNIX.
>2)  This is false, so you must stop claiming it.
>3)  And, since you are distributing UNIX, you must license it from us.

   Assuming (3) is true, BSDI has not yet paid USL for a license to use the
Unix trademark.  On those grounds, they may be able to get away with
claiming (1) and (2).  It may also be the case that derivations of their
operating system are not necessarily entitled to use the Unix trademark at
all.

   Note that I'm not a lawyer.  This is just speculation on my part. 
Overall, I suspect that USL is just testing the waters to see what they can
get away with, rather than really believing their rights have been
violated.  Their claims (other than obvious trademark violation) are just
too vague.
Newsgroups: gnu.misc.discuss