HDTenEightyP/NetNews huggingface dataset:
From: beaver@castor.cs.psu.edu (Don Beaver)
Subject: Re: Itemized accounting of child support
Date: Wed, 23 Dec 1992 14:42:55 GMT

<1992Dec22.212914.6338@desire.wright.edu> sbishop@desire.wright.edu writes:
><Bzny8F.7Lr@cs.psu.edu>, beaver@castor.cs.psu.edu (Don Beaver) writes:
>><1992Dec21.200751.6319@desire.wright.edu> sbishop@desire.wright.edu writes:
>>><BzMDI4.Fvt@cs.psu.edu>, beaver@castor.cs.psu.edu (Don Beaver) writes:
>>>>article <1992Dec20.085201.6296@desire.wright.edu> sbishop@desire.wright.edu writes:

>>>>>Ah, but Michal, both Alan and Bob consider anything except money paid for
>>>>>immediate basic minimal needs as luxury!  So, salting money away for a 
>>>>>bicycle (an HUGE luxury item in their eyes), or *gasp* college is a waste
>>>>>of THEIR precious funds.
>> 
>>>> There should be no LEGAL obligation to pay for college or to
>>>> pay child support that includes money to be saved for college.
>>>> Married parents are not legally required to pay for college.
>>>
>>>Did I say that the NCP should have to pay for college?  
>> 
>> What does "*gasp* college" imply?
>> 
>> Why did you respond so antagonistically to not allowing the CP to
>> "save any of the child support for college"?
>
>Wait a minute.  YOU were the one who was complaining about people using
>money for non-essentials.  NOT me.  And that's your post about no LEGAL
>obligation to pay for college.
>Stop clouding issues.

No, Sue, you said "salting money away for ... *gasp* college."

If you weren't implying that college savings should be a part of
child support, then say so, and we can save the bandwidth.

Don
-- 
beaver@cs.psu.edu                       Opinions from the PC-challenged
Newsgroups: alt.dads-rights,alt.child-support
From: beaver@castor.cs.psu.edu (Don Beaver)
Subject: Re: Itemized accounting of child support
Date: Wed, 23 Dec 1992 14:54:12 GMT

<1992Dec22.212914.6338@desire.wright.edu> sbishop@desire.wright.edu writes:
><Bzny8F.7Lr@cs.psu.edu>, beaver@castor.cs.psu.edu (Don Beaver) writes:

>> Will you continue your "creative bookkeeping" in which you sometimes
>> claim you use part of X for vacations, part of Y for college, and then
>> say none of X or Y goes for vacations or college  -- because it's not 
>> enough to pay for a teenager anyway?
>> 
>> Sue, could you please just stick to one accounting system?
>
>And maybe you had better learn to read.  Out of the 'huge' amount of $368
>per month child support that Mike's dad pays, my husband and I get $300.

I learned to read long ago.  Is there something hidden in the following?

  "Plus out of the $300 we provide
   him an allowance, transportation to all his sporting events, food, shelter,
   entertainment, a really nice vacation every year....... (this Christmas
   we will spend a week at a condo in the Florida Keys)....  And his dad 
   accuses us of 'profiting!'."

            - Sue Bishop, 10/3/92, <1992Oct3.204455.4515@desire.wright.edu>


And, Sue, nobody (certainly not I) asked you to publicize these details 
of your personal life.  Frankly, I couldn't care less -- but I do care 
when someone claims that using child support money for luxuries is 
justifiable and right.

So your griping about "nosiness" and other paranoias might be 
better directed to a therapist.

>I still am very puzzled as to why my finances and how we spend Mike's
>money is such an obsession with you?  Is it some kind of envy thing?
>Or are you just compulsively nosy?

Don
-- 
beaver@cs.psu.edu                       Opinions from the PC-challenged
Newsgroups: alt.dads-rights,soc.men,soc.women,misc.kids,misc.legal
From: noraa@cbnewsk.cb.att.com (aaron.l.hoffmeyer)
Subject: Surviving False Allegations--the book
Organization: AT&T Bell Laboratories
Date: Mon, 21 Dec 1992 17:23:41 GMT

The Men's Movement/soc.men Book Review FAQ contains a review of a book
called _Guilty Until Proven Inncoent:  A Manual for Surviving False
Allegations of Child Abuse_ by Kim Hart, executive director of the
National Child Abuse Defense and Resource Center.  This post contains
detailed information on how to obtain that book.

The book is published by The Winchester Group.  You must order directly
from the publisher.

The address and phone number is:

	The Winchester Group
	7720 B El Camino Real #241
	Carlsbad, CA 92009
	1 (800) 452-9873 (ask for Hank)

The price is $35.00, plus Sales Tax, plus $3.50 shipping and handling.

The manual is a guide for the accused and the accused's attorney through
the legal language and different legal procedures that they will face.
It offers sound suggestions for dealing with all parties, including
social workers, caseworkers, psychologists and legal officials.

The following is a list of the chapter titles of the manual:

	1.  Dealing with Your Feelings
	2.  Helping Yourself Prepare
	3.  Criminal Court
	4.  Domestic Relations and Juvenile Courts
	5.  Incarceration
	6.  Appeals Court
	Appendix:  Tables of Motions

The book is fairly slim in size (76 pages), but big in valuable
information.

The National Child Abuse Defense and Resource Center, P.O. Box, 638,
Holland, OH 43528, (419) 865-0513, is a resource group for people
enmeshed in the social service or court systems as a results of false
child abuse allegations or charges.  Contributions to this group are
tax-deductible.

Aaron L. Hoffmeyer
TR@CBNEA.ATT.COM 
Newsgroups: alt.dads-rights,soc.men,soc.women,misc.legal
From: dan.baer@ehbbs.gwinnett.com (Dan Baer) 
Newsgroups: alt.dads-rights
Subject: ADDRESS
Date: 1 Jan 93 23:26:00 GMT
Distribution: world
Organization: Ed Hopper's BBS - Berkeley Lake, GA - 404-446-9462
Reply-To: dan.baer@ehbbs.gwinnett.com (Dan Baer) 

 Question: Does anyone know a good way to find the address of a person
when you only have their phone number. I have tried 'PhoneFile' on
CI$ but they do not have the phone number in their database. The
phone number should be in Carroll County Georgia (prefix 562).
  Any help in this matter is appreciated!
              AdvaThanksnce.
                                               
----
+-----------------------------------------------------------------------+
|       Ed Hopper's BBS - ehbbs.gwinnett.com - Atlanta, Georgia         |
|  USR/HST: 404-446-9462                  V.32bis: 404-446-9465         |
+-----------------------------------------------------------------------+
Newsgroups: alt.dads-rights
From: terry@cs.weber.edu (A Wizard of Earth C)
Subject: Re: Novell buys Unix Systems Laboratory
Organization: University of Utah Computer Center
Distribution: alt
Date: Fri, 25 Dec 92 02:30:18 GMT

In article <BzptML.J23@ra.nrl.navy.mil>, atkinson@itd.nrl.navy.mil (Randall Atkinson) writes:
|>   BSDI and 386BSD are pretty darned close to identical, except in
|> about 10 kernel files and some device drivers.

These are the contended "cleaned" files.  There may be other contended code,
but this is the bulk of it, and since suit wasn't filed immediately over the
Net/2 release, it's likely that this is where the problem lies.  Thus it is
not necessarily true that 386BSD and BSD/386 fates are as closely intertwined
as several people would have us believe.

|> There is no USL source in BSDI.

This has still to be decided by a court; your and my opinions (although they
are the same in this case) are of no consequence, unless we are called as
witnesses; our postings here make that unlikely, unless there has been a
change in the legal definition of "collusion".

|> Both BSDI and 386BSD are derived from BSD Net/2.

Not argued; the fact that BSDI is derived from Net/2 and then sold
commercially is the basis for the action against UCB.  Whether or not said
action is valid has yet to be decided, an the basis of UCBs 32V license.

|> USL claims property rights in all BSD Net/2 sources -- even those that UC
|> Berkeley felt were freely distributable to people without a UNIX
|> source license from AT&T.  BSDI contains no sources from Net/2 that UC
|> Berkeley felt were not publically distributable.

Again, not argued -- although your interpretation of USLs intent is still
open to interpretation.  I interpret it to mean that USL claims ownership
not of the code, but of the trade secrets embodied in the code, and that
non-commercial distribution was within the bounds of UCBs license, and
that, further, their error lies in their alleged association with BSDI,
a commercial venture.

|> If BSDI is found to infringe, 386BSD will automatically be found to
|> infringe on the same basis.

I would ammend this to say that "if BSDI is found to infringe on the basis
of the Net/2 code being proprietary, 386BSD will automatically be found to
infringe on the same basis".  This is not the only potential interpretation
of the cause of action.


					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,misc.legal.software,misc.legal
From: mnemonic@eff.org (Mike Godwin)
Subject: Re: BSDI lawsuit
Originator: mnemonic@eff.org
Organization: Electronic Frontier Foundation
Date: Mon, 28 Dec 1992 15:30:45 GMT

In article <1992Dec28.141701.25015@crd.ge.com> usenet@crd.ge.com (Required for NNTP) writes:

>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.

This is more or less the case.

Incidentally, the party revealing the secret can sued only if that party
acquired the information by improper means, such as violating a fiduciary
relationship or an employment contract. If I run across a trade secret
that somebody has left on the subway seat next to me, I can reveal it
without having action taken against me.


--Mike


-- 
Mike Godwin,    |"I'm waiting for the one-man revolution
mnemonic@eff.org| The only one that's coming."
(617) 864-0665  |                           
EFF, Cambridge  |                   --Robert Frost 
Newsgroups: alt.suit.att-bsdi,comp.org.eff.talk
From: mitch@cirrus.com (Mitch Wright)
Newsgroups: alt.suit.att-bsdi,comp.org.eff.talk,misc.legal.software
Subject: Re: BSDI lawsuit
Date: 29 Dec 92 20:24:35 GMT
Followup-To: poster
Organization: Cirrus Logic Inc.

/* In <scs.725650326@wotan.iti.org> scs@iti.org (Steve Simmons) writes: */

>>>. . . 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
>>>[...]
>>
>>Not true. Trade secret law extends to those that acquire or disclose
>>[...]
>
>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.
>
>However, should that secret enter the general knowledge due to improper
>actions on the part of some third party (eg, some publishing company
>decides to publish the complete sVr4 source code), that third party
>is liable for damages to the tune of whatever the trade secret was worth.
>
What if the third party is unknown.  Say someone posts all of the SVR4
source code to something like alt.sources.  Since forged mail/postings
are trivial, this makes the third party unknown to all, but the "secret"
is now out.  At this point is the "secret out of the bag"?
Who is liable if anyone?  Would USL just have to bite the bullet?
Does the "trade secret remain intact"?  Anybody know/care/read this far?

   ~mitch

PS: No, I have no intention of finding and posting SVR4 or any other
    such code.
Xref: sparky alt.suit.att-bsdi:688 comp.org.eff.talk:7934 comp.org.sug:537 comp.org.usenix:1113
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: 22 Dec 92 17:16:57 GMT
Distribution: alt
Organization: Weber State University  (Ogden, UT)

In article <Bzn7Iy.6rA@demon.co.uk> gtoal@pizzabox.demon.co.uk (Graham Toal) writes:
>In article <1992Dec22.000950.17636@ads.com> henry@ADS.COM (Henry Mensch) writes:
>:bzs@world.std.com (Barry Shein) wrote: 
>:->Announced today on the news, $350M, official announcement 2PM EST,
>:->Unix is a trademark of Novell, Inc.
>:
>:there goes the neighborhood ...
>
>Errr... big question: how will this affect the USL "IT'S UNIX" BSDI lawsuit?

This is in no way an opinion of my employer, but I personally suspect there
will be very little impact on the "1-800-ITS-UNIX" part of the suit -- this
because "UNIX" is still a registered trademark of AT&T; it was only
licensed for use to USL.  The big question, considering it was only a letter
of intent, is is it going to get regulatory approval.  The next question is
will USL still be allowed to use AT&T's trademark?


					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: bzs@world.std.com (Barry Shein)
Subject: Re: Novell buys Unix Systems Laboratory
Organization: The World
	<1992Dec23.033508.3126@fcom.cc.utah.edu> <Bzqt08.5vI@demon.co.uk>
Distribution: alt
Date: Thu, 24 Dec 1992 04:20:16 GMT


>Actually, I read the actual wording of the suit when it was posted.  It's
>primarily about the use of the name 'Unix' as epitomised by the 800-ITS-UNIX
>number.  There's nothing about using proprietary code, and only a little
>about prior knowledge.  The main claim is trademark infringement.  (One
>that I hope a good lawyer would be able to smash, on several grounds as
>have been suggested here.)

You need to catch up...

I believe the portion of the suit claims over 800-ITS-UNIX were
resolved a long time ago and does not appear in the current claims.

The suit is most definitely about a claim of proprietary code and/or
ideas (i.e. an accusation that code was produced as a direct result of
reading the proprietary code.)

Taking that for true (and it basically is), how about dipping into the
collective wisdom and people try to propose possible settlements that
involve something other than total victory for one side or the other?

You never know who reads these notes, you might give someone a good
idea for a way out of this idiotic lawsuit, that is, someone who isn't
making it hand over fist by dragging this thing out...

-- 
        -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,comp.org.sug,comp.org.usenix
From: bzs@world.std.com (Barry Shein)
Subject: Re: Novell buys Unix Systems Laboratory
Organization: The World
	<1992Dec23.033508.3126@fcom.cc.utah.edu> <BzptML.J23@ra.nrl.navy.mil>
	<1992Dec25.023018.19499@fcom.cc.utah.edu>
Distribution: alt
Date: Fri, 25 Dec 1992 03:57:30 GMT


From: terry@cs.weber.edu (A Wizard of Earth C)
>Again, not argued -- although your interpretation of USLs intent is still
>open to interpretation.  I interpret it to mean that USL claims ownership
>not of the code, but of the trade secrets embodied in the code, and that
>non-commercial distribution was within the bounds of UCBs license, and
>that, further, their error lies in their alleged association with BSDI,
>a commercial venture.

No, completely false. If this was true than how did Sun (for example,
and DEC and many others) build their entire business on the UCB code
(pre-Net/x)? Or are they not commercial?

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.)

There was never any line drawn in regards to commercial/non-commercial
for UCB. USL had different prices for source licenses for those
various types of customers, but that's irrelevant to what you're
claiming.

-- 
        -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,comp.org.sug,comp.org.usenix
From: bhayden@teal.csn.org (Bruce Hayden)
Subject: Re: BSDI lawsuit
Keywords: copyright, notice
Organization: Colorado SuperNet, Inc.
Distribution: inet
Date: Tue, 29 Dec 1992 17:02:02 GMT

hollaar%basset.utah.edu@cs.utah.edu (Lee Hollaar) writes:

>In article <1ho55fINN731@ftp.UU.NET> sef@Kithrup.COM (Sean Eric Fagan) writes:
>>In article <1ho25nINNm7n@usenet.INS.CWRU.Edu> edguer@ces.cwru.edu (Aydin Edguer) writes:
>>>So USL is claiming copyright violations.
>>
>>The 32V code that the university started out from was not copyrighted.
>>(No explicit copyright notice, and it was done before the US said that
>>things were automatically copyrighted.)
>>So they would probably lose a copyright charge.

>Not quite so simple.  It depends on two facts -- when was the code first
>fixed in a tangible medium and whether the code was published.  Publication
>generally means sale or other transfer of ownership, rental, lease, or
>lending.  It would probably not be code licensed with restrictions on
>further distribution.

>Before the effective date of the Copyright Act of 1976 (January 1, 1978),
>the prior federal copyright act covered only published works, and required
>notice on the work at the time it was published or copyright was lost.
>Unpublished works were covered by state copyright laws (generally common
>law rather than statutory law).

>If a copyrighted work contained a notice, this generally meant that the
>work would be considered as published, so unpublished works would not
>normally have a copyright notice.

Well, not exactly. I do not think that you can say that just because
it didn't have a notice that it is unpublished (if prior to the 
1976 C/R Act). Publication is primarily a question of fact, with
the court looking at how widely the work was distributed, and 
how tightly the distribution was controlled.

>The Copyright Act of 1976 changed all this.  "Copyright protection
>subsists ... in original works of authorship fixed in any tangible
>medium ..." (Section 102)  No notice is required, and state copyright
>laws on unpublished works are preempted by the federal law (Section 301).
>The notice requirement before the Berne amendments in 1988 read
>"Whenever a work protected by copyright under this title is *published*
>in the United States ... a notice of copyright shall be placed on
>*publically distributed* copies ..." (Section 401)  Note that the
>requirement is only for published works, and only on the publically
>distributed copies.

>So, if 32V is an unpublished work, it is likely protected either under
>state copyright law (if written prior to 1978) or federal law, even if
>it has no notice.

Again, I think that you are too quick to jump to the conclusion that
the work was "unpublished". 

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: joeg@gagme.chi.il.us (joe grosch)
Subject: Re: Novell buys Unix Systems Laboratory
Organization: GAGME - Public Access UNIX of Chicago, Illinois, USA, Earth
X-Newsreader: TIN [version 1.1 PL6]
Distribution: alt
Date: Tue, 29 Dec 1992 19:21:00 GMT

Barry Shein (bzs@world.std.com) wrote:
: 
: Announced today on the news, $350M, official announcement 2PM EST,
: Unix is a trademark of Novell, Inc.
: 
Well, you can kiss TCP/IP and sockets goodbye. They'll shoehorn NetWare
into it. :-( Anybody what a copy of 386BSD?

--
Josef Grosch         | It's been a quiet week in Lake Wobegon, my home town...
joeg@gagme.chi.il.us |       New Yorker by birth, Minnesotan by choice 
Newsgroups: alt.suit.att-bsdi
From: terry@cs.weber.edu (A Wizard of Earth C)
Subject: Re: BSDI lawsuit
Organization: Weber State University  (Ogden, UT)
Distribution: inet
Date: Tue, 29 Dec 92 22:48:41 GMT

In article <BZS.92Dec29140402@world.std.com> bzs@world.std.com (Barry Shein) writes:
>The matter is still a lot more complicated than it would be with a
>simpler matter (e.g. AT&T being forbidden from entering the software
>market at the time and their handling of their intellectual property
>in order to get around that.)

I think this may be key.

>Anyhow, the core of the dispute is whether or not Net/2 violates USL's
>claims at all, regardless of the basis for those claims (i.e. is it a
>copy at all?)

Would a win by USL place AT&T in violation of the Sherman antitrust acts
because it would mean they were involved in a proscribed activity?

By deriving profit now for their activities then, are they in violation
of Sherman?  Does it matter that they profit from the proscribed act after
the fact (ie: is there a statue of limitations re Sherman)?

Does selling USL relieve AT&T of this?

Inquiring minds want to know...


					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,misc.legal.software,misc.legal
From: mnemonic@eff.org (Mike Godwin)
Subject: Re: BSDI lawsuit
Originator: mnemonic@eff.org
Organization: Electronic Frontier Foundation
Date: Thu, 31 Dec 1992 16:54:57 GMT

In article <1992Dec31.155423.23198@news.media.mit.edu> brent@media.mit.edu (Brent C.J. Britton) writes:
>mnemonic@eff.org (Mike Godwin) writes:
>>
>>I believe this applies only if scienter *precedes* the acquisition,
>>Bruce. It seems likely that, say, a Wall Street Journal reporter
>>who comes across a trade secret after it has been left on the
>>subway could publish what she finds, without fear of civil or criminal
>>liability, even if it is apparent that the secret was originally acquired
>>or disclosed by improper means.
>
>The restatement conflicts with the uniform act on this point.

My guess is that the restatement would likely be used in interpreting
the Uniform Act. See below.

>According to the restatement, the misappropriator is required to have
>notice before learning the TS. According to the uniform act, scienter
>must precede "a material change in his or her position", not merely
>acquisition.

Given that the rationale of the Trade Secrets Act, like all trade-secrets
law, is to prevent unfair competition, it seems unlikely that my
hypothetical Wall Street Journal reporter would be seen as a likely
defendant in an action under the act.


--Mike



-- 
Mike Godwin,    |"I'm waiting for the one-man revolution
mnemonic@eff.org| The only one that's coming."
(617) 864-0665  |                           
EFF, Cambridge  |                   --Robert Frost 
Xref: sparky alt.suit.att-bsdi:731 comp.org.eff.talk:8106