From: arl@cs.hut.fi (Ari Lemmke)
Subject: AT&T vs Linux .. no deal (was: Re: AT&T/USL CD-ROM Review Process)
Organization: Helsinki University of Technology, Finland
	<1992Dec13.183240.23944@blaze.cs.jhu.edu>
	<1992Dec14.165913.6896@fcom.cc.utah.edu>
	<1992Dec15.223317.158@nntp.hut.fi>
Date: Wed, 16 Dec 1992 04:57:51 GMT


	comp.unix.bsd taken out. nothing to do with it.

In article <1992Dec15.223317.158@nntp.hut.fi> jkp@cs.HUT.FI (Jyrki Kuoppala) writes:
   In article <1992Dec14.165913.6896@fcom.cc.utah.edu>, terry@cs (A Wizard of Earth C) writes:
:   >Second, Linux is arguably more like SVR3 (and by extension SVR4) than
:   >386BSD; this, I believe, puts it in more danger of censure.  The thing
:   >that has protected Linux so far is its international (non-US) origin.

	Censure, where? At least Finland is _free_ country, we
	have not yet used to lick USA's *** we have done it
	decades with our eastern neighbor ;-)

:   >This is not something USL has to worry about forever, it's simply an
:   >inconvenience to prosecution, not a barrier.  If a judgement were given
:   >regarding copyright infringement by Linux against USL's materials, it
:   >wouldn't matter that the judgement occurred in the US; Linus' government
:   >would be forced by the Berne convention to uphold the judgement.
:
:   Is this really so?  I don't think so, but what do I know.  First, I
:   think Berne is much more limited than the current trend of the U.S.
:   application of copyright laws to just about anything.

	I'm not even sure does Berne cover software.

:   Second, as Linux's country of origin is Finland I think it would
:   be the Finnish laws that would apply, not U.S.

	And under the Finnish laws there would be no danger to
	loose. It would take years here, we do not have layers
	which can understand software and international laws.
	U.S. laws would be noted in our court, but they do
	not have any value here. In fact Linus Torvalds might profit
	a lot of such a sue [Finnish 'Prosessioikeus Pr 1,21,4$',
	my copy is old 1963].

	Our Finnish law _hardly_ resembles the U.S. law.

	AT&T would have to translate papers (at least $100 a piece ;-),
	thousands of them. It would go through all 3 stages of
	our Finnish court system i.e. at least 5 years (?), and
	AT&T even then can't be sure if they win (Linus pays), or
	they loose (AT&T pays ;-). It would be much much cheaper
	for AT&T to pay Linus some sum, like $1,000,000 not
	to distribute Linux ;-) ....

	The funny part is that Linus does not have to be
	a millionaire to win a large company. AT&T, what is it? ;-)
	[Pr 24a].

:   >I think a company pressing a CDROM in the US would provide a convenient
:   >(and less expensive for USL) target of prosecution for such infringment,

	Hopefully, I'm going to print Linux manuals, possibly
	in China, will AT&T sue me? I'm waiting .. Some parts
	may contain Linux kernel sources ...

:   >and thus perhaps provide a vehicle for establishing an anti-Linux
:   >judgement.  A CDROM publisher is a hell of a lot more likely to plead
:   >_nolo_contendre_ (no contest) in return for limited damage claims.
:
:   But how would this stop distribution of Linux?  Perhaps in USA, but
:   elsewhere?

	I'm really not sure how it's possible to prevent
	redistribution without a court order?

	Damage claims here, if they are high, court might
	set it quite low (few thousands of dollars, or
	if AT&T loose they have to pay to Linus Torvalds).

	I think AT&T vs. Linux is obsolete, there's just
	no case.

:   //Jyrki

	arl