Source: http://www.groklaw.net/articlebasic.php?story=20040911195306243
Timestamp: 2019-04-24 04:54:57+00:00

Document:
Update: This was a document that we intended to do in HTML, but time got away from us. I'm adding it now as plain text, so it's publicly available (2013).
"Mr. Pfeffer received a Bachelor of Electrical Engineering from the City College of New York in 1958 and an LLB from New York University in 1961. He joined AT&T as a patent attorney in 1961 and worked for them continuously in various assignments until his retirement in December 1989 as General Attorney-Intellectual Property Matters. Among his areas of specialty at AT&T were semiconductor technology and software and technology licensing. He also is the Chairman for the Practicing Law Institute's Programs on Fundamentals of Patent Prosecution and Advanced Claim Drafting and Amendment Writing. He is registered to practice before the United States Patent and Trademark Office."
"NOTE: Before 1978, federal copyright was generally secured by the act of publication with notice of copyright, assuming compliance with all other relevant statutory conditions. U. S. works in the public domain on January 1, 1978, (for example, works published without satisfying all conditions for securing federal copyright under the Copyright Act of 1909) remain in the public domain under the 1976 Copyright Act."
Back in the old days, then, you had a choice: copyright protection or trade secret. According to Mr. Pfeffer, and he should know, AT&T/USL chose trade secret, believing it back then to be the stronger protection.
and Frank has the Docket sheet as well.
WILSON, LEO T. MCCARTHY, WILLIE L.
similarity between its 32V code and the University's Net2 software.
proceed directly with the sentence.
copyright in that derivative work.
McKusick's testimony was as explosive as a "pop gun." As Dr.
improved codedeveloped by the University) in the Net2 release.
programs and peripherals -- were also included in Net2. Id. at Para.
source files. Id. at Para. 2.
common code (out of the 1.5 million lines of source code in Net2).
14,293 lines of source code in the 32V kernel. Id. at Para 1.
Net2 that actually contain 32V code which he considered significant.
of 358 total lines) that also appeared in 32V. Id. at Para. 2.1.1.
at 1 6.2. But even if it were not estopped to complain about "cpio.c,"
the long-obsolete 32V code was forfeited years ago.
specious because no specific trade secret has been identified by USL.
other members of the public to use.
University were not privileged to create derivative works).
revealed by the University's amicus brief and supporting evidence.
BSD code (of which Net2 is a subset).
modification or derivative work made by [the University].... "
[AT&T] Software Product." Shapreau Decl., Exh. G.
to such proprietary software...." Towers Decl., Exh. A.
assume that USL holds a valid 32V copyright.
was expressly given by AT&T to the University.
Institute, Inc. v. S&H Computer Systems. Inc., 605 F. Supp. 816 (M.D.
work, much less ownership of the copyright in such derivative work.
4,176 Net2 files) which contain a smattering of original 32V code.
USL has no copyright claim against Net2.
In Universal Athletic Sales Co. v. Salkeld, 511 F.2d 904 (3rd Cir.
Second Joint Decl., at 114, 6; Second McKusick Decl., at 12.
[fn3] Compare, Feder v. Videotrip Corp., 697 F. Supp. 1165, 1176 (D.
70,000 a de minimis taking); R.L. Polk & Co. v. Musser, 105 F. Supp.
most important part of plaintiff's work.
generated by a program and the keystrokes used to operate it.
Computer v. Microsoft Corp., 799 F.Supp. 1006, 1020-21 (N.D. Cal.
another will not amount to infringement."
Sega Enterprises. Ltd. v. Accolade, Inc., ___F.2d___, slip op. at 41.
attached to the Second Karels Decl. and Karels Decl., at Para.
published this work. DeFazio Aff., Exh. F.
authority that the source and object code for 32V are but one work.
AT&T." Id. at Para. 5.
be relieved of the statutory requirements of the 1976 Copyright Act.
Convention Implementation Act of 1988...." 17 U.S.C. Section 405(a).
Copyright, 7.12[C], at 7-100.1(1992) .
in which copies of 32V were exchanged without a manual.
on Copyright, 7.10[A], at 7-69 (1992)..
Exhibit 3 does not appear to contain any copyright notice.
223 (1990) quoting, Russell v. Price, 612 F.2d 1123, 1128 (9th Cir.
1979), cert denied, 446 U.S. 952 (1980).
and does not imply any exclusive right in the preexisting material.
copyright notice has injected 32V into the public domain.
"contractual restrictions [alone] negate any requirement of notice"
restrictions with respect. to disclosure of [a work's] contents,"
Copyright, Section 4.13[B], at 4-72-73 and the cases cited therein.
[fn11] H.R. Rep. No. 1746, 94th Cong., 2d Sess. 138 (1976).
normal circle of a family and its social acquaintances is gathered."
H.R. Rep. No. 1746, 94th Cong., 2d Sess. at 64 (1976).
demonstrate that USL has published 32V to a non-selected group.
Both Paramount Pictures Corp. v. Rubinowitz, 217 U.S.P.Q. 48 (E.D.
group requirement, its limited publication argument must fail.
purpose in its publication of 32V.
not an infringing work even if USL possess a valid copyright in 32V.
trade secrets by releasing Net2.

References: v. 
 v. 
 v. 
 v. 
 v. 
 v. 
 v. 
 v.