From: ted@telematics.com (Ted Goldblatt)
Subject: USL's claims to "intellectual property"
Organization: Telematics Intl., Inc.; Ft. Lauderdale, FL
Date: Thu, 13 Aug 1992 19:18:58 GMT

(ObDisclaimer: I'm no lawyer, and don't even play one :-))

The way _I_ read the complaint and intellectual property law
(which is sort of haphazardly), USL could be claiming any
of 3 things (or a combination):

1.  Net2 contains code that makes use of ideas or techniques
    that, while not patented by USL, are treated by USL as
    trade secrets (provided to source licensees with usage
    and control restrictions), and in revealing these, CSRG
    violated the license.

    I would think that the number and depth of articles and
    books about Un*x internals, as well as the sheer number 
    of source licenses and relative lack of control over them
    would make a trade secret argument untenable.  Certainly
    I wouldn't think that there would be any inovative 
    techniques in V32 that hadn't been published by now.

2.  Net2 contains code directly lifted from (some rev of)
    Un*x, or code that had only been cosmetically altered
    from actual USL code.

    This is a judgement call area.  Incrementing a variable
    named "i" will look like "i++", no matter who writes it.
    For larger chunks of code (and for "cosmetic" rewrites),
    the questions are "for the given task, is the (practical or
    reasonable) solution space constrained sufficiently that
    2 alternative implementations will always end up similar"
    and "what is similar".  Depending on the competence (and
    biases :-)) of the reviewers, there could be calls either
    way here, but if I were USL, I wouldn't depend on this.
    (Admittedly, I haven't seen either peice of code, so take
    that bold pronouncement as you will.)

3.  This (potential) claim would depend on USL's ability to 
    treat all of V32 as a single copyrighted entity.  The 
    argument then could be that at each step of derivation,
    from V32 through BSD4.4 (including such side ventures as
    Net2), _all_ of the code (including that wholey written
    by CSRG or others) becomes a derived work of V32 by virtue(?) 
    of its incorporation into something that is admittedly a
    derived work (or at least, that items that are replacements
    for items in V32 (the brick-by-brick argument) would fall
    into this category). and further, that this code doesn't 
    lose its status as a derived work simply by virtue of having 
    been "un-incorporated" as a separate entity. (Whew, that was 
    a long sentence)

    This one is ugly.  Unfortunately, it is purely a legal argument,
    based on interpretation of copyright rules, and therefore 
    cannot (easily) be challenged on technical or other "merit"
    grounds.  It would, however, let off the hook any Un*x-alikes
    that are not descendents of BSD (e.g., Linux, at least exclusive
    of any Net2 based add-ons).  What it would mean for Net1, which
    seems (on the surface) to be totally free from any ATT/USL
    heritage is not clear.  It seems likely that if the laws
    _could_ be interpretted this way, USL would try this.

All of this does seem to argue against academia and others who are
interested in free distribution of research and results from getting
involved with "protected" code, since the "black box" approaches
used in industry for reverse engineering are probably too expensive
and provide too little benefit to be worth while.

ted
-- 
Ted Goldblatt    ted@telematics.com     (305) 351-4367
    Telematics Intl., Inc.   Ft. Lauderdale, FL
Newsgroups: comp.unix.bsd