HDTenEightyP/NetNews huggingface dataset:
From: mark@roissy.umd.edu (Mark Sienkiewicz)
Newsgroups: alt.suit.att-bsdi,comp.org.eff.talk,comp.org.sug,comp.org.usenix
Subject: Re: Novell buys Unix Systems Laboratory
Date: 31 Dec 92 17:01:43 GMT
Distribution: alt
Organization: University of Maryland

In article <BZS.92Dec23232016@world.std.com> bzs@world.std.com (Barry Shein) writes:
>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?
>

Well, that depends on what each side wants.  I've been reading this
group for a few months now, and I've seen lots of flameage, lots of
discussions of various points of law, but no actual references to
information about the suit.

You can't just sue somebody for infringing your copyright.  You have
to also ask the court to enjoin them from doing it any more, or
to destroy infringing materials, or to pay damages.

So what did USL ask for?  I presume they ask that the BSDI code be declared
to infringe on USL's proprietary rights, that BSDI be prohibited from
using it, and that BSDI pay damages.

BSDI, of course, wants to be left alone.

I think it _should_ (but maybe not _will_) be hard to prove that 
the general functionality of any particular part of the kernel is
not public knowledge.  (e.g. "The Design of the Unix Operating System"
published a few years ago.)

Assuming this, it is only the particulars of BSD386 that infringe, in
which case the infringing material could be indentified and removed.
I hardly think that USL owns the rights to name a function "namei"
though.  What to replace could be a big issue itself.

Mark S.

p.s.  I've seen code that says "Copyright 1973 Bell Telephone Laboratories
Inc".  Under the old copyright law, shouldn't that be expired by now?

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.92Dec24225037@world.std.com>
	<1992Dec26.223806.2782@fcom.cc.utah.edu>
Distribution: alt
Date: Sat, 26 Dec 1992 23:45:06 GMT


From: terry@cs.weber.edu (A Wizard of Earth C) [responding to me]
>>So instead USL sued BSDI hoping that would do it. This turned out
>>(procedurally) to be a terrible error, so they then added UCB to the
>>suit, the only other choice at that point was dropping the suit
>>entirely.
>>
>>Isn't that obvious? I thought it was.
>
>Then why not drop the expensive litigation against BSDI?

Perhaps it's too late, if I were BSDI and USL did that to me I'd sue
their pants off: Engage me in a suit, cause me business problems and
direct costs, and then drop me admitting freely that they sued the
wrong party for PR reasons or some such babble? Hah! I'd be happy to
*invest* in the results of that counter-suit! It would be irrelevant
if they were still ultimately affected by the outcome, knowingly suing
the wrong party w/o a really good reason is not a good position to be
in, particularly if you got deep pockets, I'd open the bidding in the
high 7 digits.

-- 
        -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:733 comp.unix.misc:4748 rec.humor:37103
From: jhi@snakemail.hut.fi (Jarkko Hietaniemi)
Newsgroups: alt.suit.att-bsdi,comp.unix.misc,rec.humor
Subject: Sign o' times...
Date: 28 Dec 92 18:28:44 GMT
Distribution: comp
Organization: Helsinki University of Technology, Finland


I guess this means that...well.  Does this mean that Tony Wosnjuk
has very recently got himself assigned to a brand new task? :-)

> Newsgroups: comp.unix.sys5.misc
> Subject: POSIX anyone.
> Message-ID: <Bzz9z8.1FD@Novell.COM>
> Date: 28 Dec 92 16:33:08 GMT
> Sender: usenet@Novell.COM (Usenet News)
> Organization: Novell, Inc.
> Lines: 14
> Nntp-Posting-Host: twosnjuk.test.npd.provo.novell.com
> 
> 
> Has anybody heard of POSIX?
> 
> Where can I get hold of a copy?
> 
> Thanks.
> 
> --
> 
> --------------------------------------------------------------------------
>     Tony Wosnjuk  (Vos - Nilk)
>     Novell Inc.     122 East 1700 South       Mail Stop D-13-2
>     Provo, Utah  84601    (801) 429-3458   (NeXT mail Welcome)
> --------------------------------------------------------------------------
Newsgroups: alt.suit.att-bsdi,comp.org.eff.talk,comp.org.sug,comp.org.usenix
From: gtoal@pizzabox.demon.co.uk (Graham Toal)
Subject: Re: Novell buys Unix Systems Laboratory
Organization: Cuddlehogs Anonymous
Distribution: alt
Date: Thu, 24 Dec 1992 02:45:43 GMT

In article <1992Dec23.033508.3126@fcom.cc.utah.edu> terry@cs.weber.edu (A Wizard of Earth C) writes:
: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).

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.)

G
Newsgroups: alt.suit.att-bsdi,comp.org.eff.talk,comp.org.sug,comp.org.usenix
From: sms@WLV.IIPO.GTEGSC.COM (Steven M. Schultz)
Subject: Re: Novell buys Unix Systems Laboratory
Organization: GTE Government Systems
Date: Tue, 22 Dec 92 08:00:37 GMT

In article <1992Dec22.063542.25302@cadreor.cadre.com> neil@cadreor.cadre.com (Neil W. Van Dyke) writes:
>
>Things should be interesting.
>
>Hmm...  Maybe we'll be seeing a commercial Plan 9 release soon...

	Hmmm... Does it (or can it) run on a PDP-11/73?  [just another
	marginally related news posting].

	Steven
Newsgroups: alt.suit.att-bsdi,comp.org.eff.talk,comp.org.sug,comp.org.usenix
From: dmuntz@quip.eecs.umich.edu (Dan Muntz)
Subject: Re: Novell buys Unix Systems Laboratory
Organization: University of Michigan EECS Dept., Ann Arbor
Distribution: alt
Date: Mon, 21 Dec 1992 18:45:40 GMT

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.

From a glance at the novell docs, it looks like the battle has turned from
the death star to the borg.

  -Dan
   dmuntz@eecs.umich.edu

Newsgroups: alt.suit.att-bsdi,comp.org.eff.talk,comp.org.sug,comp.org.usenix
From: Tom Christiansen <tchrist@convex.COM>
Subject: Re: Novell buys Unix Systems Laboratory
Originator: tchrist@pixel.convex.com
Date: Wed, 23 Dec 1992 06:36:32 GMT
Distribution: alt
Reply-To: tchrist@convex.COM (Tom Christiansen)
Organization: Convex Computer Corporation, Colorado Springs, CO
X-Disclaimer: This message was written by a user at CONVEX Computer
              Corp. The opinions expressed are those of the user and
              not necessarily those of CONVEX.

From the keyboard of brad@clarinet.com (Brad Templeton):
: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

Oops, looks like Brad messed up the newsgroups line on his own
rec.humor.funny submission. :-)

--tom
-- 
    Tom Christiansen      tchrist@convex.com      convex!tchrist
I have made good judgements in the Past. 
I have made good judgements in the Future. 
		--Vice President Dan Quayle
Newsgroups: alt.suit.att-bsdi,comp.org.eff.talk
From: johnm@cory.Berkeley.EDU (John D. Mitchell)
Subject: Re: BSDI lawsuit
Keywords: copyright, notice
Organization: University of California, at Berkeley
Date: Tue, 29 Dec 1992 19:48:02 GMT

In article <1992Dec29.175458.25739@fcom.cc.utah.edu> terry@cs.weber.edu (A
Wizard of Earth C) writes:
>] pub.lish \'p*b-lish\ \-*-b*l\ vb [ME publishen, modif. of MF publier, fr. L 
>]    publicare, fr. ]publicus 1a: to make generally known 1b: to make public 
>]    announcement of obs  2: ADVERTISE 3a: to place before the public : 
>]    DISSEMINATE 3b: to produce or release for publication; specif : PRINT
>]3c:
>]    to issue the work of (an author) 1: to put out an edition 2: to have one's 
>]    work accepted for publication {a ~ing scholar} - pub.lish.able aj
>
>Was 32V published?  Under 1a, 3b(produce), and 3c.1, it seems an argument
>could be made.
>
>What are the pre 01 Jan 78 protections provided by the stae of California,
>and were the statuatory terms met by the 32V distribution?

Hmm.. There is a fairly specific definition of 'publish' that is used in
conjunction with copyright law.  How closely that definition matches the
Webster dictionary version is immaterial (obviously the gist is the same
but the criteria used to judge whether or not some software was 'published'
with respect to copyright law is the key).

John
johnm@cory.Berkeley.EDU
Newsgroups: alt.suit.att-bsdi,comp.unix.misc,rec.humor
From: jhi@snakemail.hut.fi (Jarkko Hietaniemi)
Subject: REPOST: Re: Sign o' times...
Organization: Helsinki University of Technology, Finland
Distribution: comp
Date: 29 Dec 92 18:03:14 GMT


(a repost correcting a false accusation)

[Me making a snide remark on a Novell guy asking:
	"Has anybody heard of POSIX?
	 Where can I get hold of a copy?
	 Thanks."
]

I have been perhaps rightfully reprimanded (by non-Novellists)
for being too nasty (I *tried to* use emoticons).  Some may well
think that the overall news are too grave to laugh at.  I guess the
best thing we can do is to give this man some pointers to POSIX.n.
We back here have few of those but I have not done the ordering so I
do not know the right addresses.  Anyone have them handy?

[Me making a public fool of myself by accusing T. W. by not showing
 his Internet email address: it was right there on the "From:" -line,
 it was just my itchy C-k finger that deleted that info]

++jhi;

Newsgroups: alt.suit.att-bsdi,comp.org.eff.talk,comp.org.sug,comp.org.usenix
From: gtoal@pizzabox.demon.co.uk (Graham Toal)
Subject: Re: Novell buys Unix Systems Laboratory
Organization: Cuddlehogs Anonymous
Distribution: alt
Date: Tue, 22 Dec 1992 04:08:57 GMT

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?

G
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: Wed, 30 Dec 1992 21:24:45 GMT

In article <bhayden.725648197@teal> bhayden@teal.csn.org (Bruce Hayden) writes:
>mnemonic@eff.org (Mike Godwin) writes:
>
>>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.
>
>Unless you knew or should have known that the trade secret was acquired
>by improper means. (Uniform Trade Secret Act).

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.

For a discussion of related legal issues, see my article, "Some 'Property'
Problems in Computer Crime Prosecution," in the Cardozo Law Forum's August
24 issue.


--Mike


--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,misc.legal.software,misc.legal
From: bhayden@teal.csn.org (Bruce Hayden)
Subject: Re: BSDI lawsuit
Organization: Colorado SuperNet, Inc.
Date: Tue, 29 Dec 1992 16:56:37 GMT

mnemonic@eff.org (Mike Godwin) writes:

>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.

Unless you knew or should have known that the trade secret was acquired
by improper means. (Uniform Trade Secret Act).

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: 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>
	<ARL.92Dec24175923@deathstar.cs.hut.fi>
	<BZS.92Dec24132749@world.std.com>
Distribution: alt
Date: Sat, 26 Dec 1992 01:52:30 GMT

In article <BZS.92Dec24132749@world.std.com> bzs@world.std.com (Barry Shein) writes:
:   That may be true, however: Emboldened with a favorable court judgement
;   USL may well push this towards something like look-and-feel, there is
:   strong language about proprietary concepts in the suit, not merely
:   copied code.

	Gladly our (Finland) law does not know anything about
	look and feel (yet). But still scared if GATT will make our
	country as a US colony. [after 1.1. there might be some
	EEA (?) or EC laws].

	Still I do not know if I would cry or laugh very long,
	if Linux is not allowed to distribute in USA ;-).

:   >	PLEASE, _read_ the code then talk again.
:
:   That's irrelevant unless you can really look at it as a bunch of
:   lawyers, judges and jurors will see it, and also take into account how

	please read my earlier post in alt.suit.att-bsdi
	(Date: Wed, 16 Dec 1992 04:57:51 GMT).

:	   -Barry Shein

	arl
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>
	<scs.725118848@wotan.iti.org> <1992Dec25.021516.19164@fcom.cc.utah.edu>
Distribution: alt
Date: Fri, 25 Dec 1992 03:50:37 GMT


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

Ok, since you don't get it I'll spell it out for you: USL originally
did not want to be seen as suing a university, it's horrible PR and
they knew it, particularly in a situation like this where so many
people credit so much to UCB/BSD/CSRG.

So instead USL sued BSDI hoping that would do it. This turned out
(procedurally) to be a terrible error, so they then added UCB to the
suit, the only other choice at that point was dropping the suit
entirely.

Isn't that obvious? I thought it was.

>|> 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).

No, if your opponent crumples fast due to lack of financial ability to
put up any fight you have no precedent, basically. You don't really
think the court and precedent system is *that* stupid, do you? The
form of the judgement would clearly mark that to anyone considering
the precedent later and it would be discarded immediately. If this
wasn't true we'd all be in big trouble, think of the broader
implications of what you're claiming.

That's one major reason why in criminal cases we provide free counsel
if needed, so that the judgement has validity, as a related example.

-- 
        -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: dhesi@rahul.net (Rahul Dhesi)
Subject: Re: Novell buys Unix Systems Laboratory
Organization: a2i network
Date: Sat, 26 Dec 1992 19:51:27 GMT

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.

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".
-- 
Rahul Dhesi <dhesi@rahul.net>
also:  dhesi@cirrus.com
Newsgroups: alt.suit.att-bsdi,comp.org.eff.talk,comp.org.sug,comp.org.usenix
From: sef@Kithrup.COM (Sean Eric Fagan)
Newsgroups: alt.suit.att-bsdi,comp.org.eff.talk
Subject: Re: BSDI lawsuit
Date: 28 Dec 1992 16:12:31 -0800
Organization: UUNET Communications
Distribution: inet
NNTP-Posting-Host: ftp.uu.net

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.

That's my understanding of it, if I'm wrong, I'm sure I'll be told real
quick :).

Xref: sparky alt.suit.att-bsdi:699 comp.org.eff.talk:7985 comp.org.sug:553 comp.org.usenix:1129
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: 23 Dec 92 13:38:20 GMT
Reply-To: davidsen@crd.ge.com (bill davidsen)
Organization: GE Corporate R&D Center, Schenectady NY

In article <Bzp683.C2s@ccu.umanitoba.ca>, thompsn@ccu.umanitoba.ca (Adam Thompson) writes:
| In <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.
| >					Terry Lambert
| >					terry@icarus.weber.edu
| 
| Sorry, Terry -- the code in Linux (TCP/IP stuff) was specifically written
| WITHOUT and Net/2 code, to avoid this problem.  The author's original
| beta announcement explicitly mentions the fact that he only glanced at the
| Net/2 code, and in fact wrote the TCP/IP support directly from the
| standards documents.  (Said documents are, to the best of my recall, a mix
| of RFCs and ISO standards...)

  Oh, Terry probably considers that a "trivial unimportant issue" too.

-- 
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: henry@ADS.COM (Henry Mensch)
Subject: Re: Novell buys Unix Systems Laboratory
Organization: Advanced Decision Systems; a div of Booz, Allen & Hamilton
Distribution: alt
Date: Tue, 22 Dec 1992 00:09:50 GMT

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 ...

--
# henry mensch / booz, allen & hamilton, inc.  / <henry@ads.com>
# "fight the real enemy."  -- sinead o'connor, and many others.
#     for information on the league for programming freedom, 
#                     write to lpf@uunet.uu.net
Newsgroups: alt.suit.att-bsdi,comp.org.eff.talk,comp.org.sug,comp.org.usenix
From: tenney@netcom.com (Glenn S. Tenney)
Subject: Re: Novell buys Unix Systems Laboratory
Organization: Netcom - Online Communication Services (408 241-9760 guest)
Distribution: alt
Date: Fri, 1 Jan 1993 09:02:02 GMT

In article <BZS.92Dec31152436@world.std.com> bzs@world.std.com (Barry Shein) writes:
> ...
>There's a fine line to walk between claiming trade secret status, i.e.
>not published at all (though of course you can disclose under contract
>as was claimed, but disclosure and publication are very different
>things), vs copyright, i.e., protected for the purpose of publication.
>At the core of that issue is an inherent contradiction if presented
>that way, and those are fundamental issues in the case.
> ...

You can publish and still claim trade secret status.

The copyright office allows you to copyright your software
while still maintaining trade secret protection over parts of
it.  I remember raising this with CONTU way back when...

It doesn't make sense to me either...


-- 
Glenn Tenney
voice: (415) 574-3420      fax: (415) 574-0546
tenney@netcom.com          Ham radio: AA6ER
Xref: sparky alt.suit.att-bsdi:677 comp.org.eff.talk:7882 comp.org.sug:525 comp.org.usenix:1100
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 18:29:56 -0500
Organization: Mentor Graphics -- IC Group
Distribution: alt
NNTP-Posting-Host: milk.warren.mentorg.com

In <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.

I quit!  Forget it!

I have a cousin that owns a dry cleaning store.  I'm gonna go work for
him.  I don't need this anymore.

I'm out of here!

Tom
P.S.  Only 1/2 :-)
-- 
Tom Limoncelli -- tal@warren.mentorg.com (work) -- tal@plts.uucp (play)
Reality is stranger than fiction #943247:  The IRS granted
ANS approval as a 501c3 "charity" on September 14, 1992.
From: an852@anon.penet.fi
Newsgroups: alt.test
Subject: test
Date: 29 Dec 92 15:51:10 GMT
Organization: Anonymous contact service
X-Anonymously-To: alt.test

TEST 10:52:31

-------------------------------------------------------------------------
To find out more about the anon service, send mail to help@anon.penet.fi.
Due to the double-blind system, any replies to this message will be anonymized,
and an anonymous id will be allocated automatically. You have been warned.
Newsgroups: alt.test