Return to BSD News archive
Newsgroups: comp.os.386bsd.questions,alt.suit.att-bsdi Path: sserve!manuel.anu.edu.au!munnari.oz.au!news.Hawaii.Edu!ames!haven.umd.edu!decuac!pa.dec.com!engage.pko.dec.com!decvax.dec.com!jtkohl From: jtkohl@zk3.dec.com (John Kohl) Subject: Re: 386BSD vs BSDI In-Reply-To: jbass@igor.tamri.com's message of Wed, 3 Mar 93 12:07:27 GMT Message-ID: <1993Mar3.224433.12538@engage.pko.dec.com> Followup-To: alt.suit.att-bsdi Sender: newsdaemon@engage.pko.dec.com (USENET News Daemon) Followups-To: alt.suit.att-bsdi Organization: Digital Equipment Corporation References: <1moeeuINNoo1@usenet.INS.CWRU.Edu> <1993Mar2.192941.8458@igor.tamri.com> <1n0mgmINNjat@ftp.UU.NET> <1993Mar3.120727.11788@igor.tamri.com> Date: Wed, 3 Mar 1993 22:44:33 GMT Lines: 17 [Note: followups redirected out of the inappropriate comp.os.386bsd.questions and into alt.suit.att-bsdi] In article <1993Mar3.120727.11788@igor.tamri.com> jbass@igor.tamri.com (John Bass) writes: > The issue is that, the internal details of this design ARE AT&T property > and UCB/CSRG accepted the information under non-disclosure knowing that > the design represented proprietary information disclosed as a trade secret. That is a key issue: do AT&T's copyright/trade secret/other intellectual property rights apply to the interfaces in question? I'm not sure, and I expect that's one of the things that will come out in trial. -- John Kohl <jtkohl@zk3.dec.com> or <jtkohl@mit.edu> working for but not representing: Digital Equipment Corporation Member of the League for Programming Freedom---get details: lpf@uunet.uu.net (The above opinions are MINE. Don't put my words in somebody else's mouth!)