Return to BSD News archive
Path: sserve!manuel!munnari.oz.au!network.ucsd.edu!usc!sol.ctr.columbia.edu!eff!world!ksr!jfw From: jfw@ksr.com (John F. Woods) Newsgroups: comp.unix.bsd Subject: Re: AT&T vs. BSDI --> 4.3BSD-NET2 distribution requires AT&T license!!! Keywords: AT&T 'Death Star' rises over BSDI's horizon [Tel. 1-800-800-4BSD Message-ID: <14105@ksr.com> Date: 24 Jul 92 13:03:33 EDT References: <l6nibgINNje6@neuro.usc.edu> <3674@vidiot.UUCP> <sb380.711882282@fred> Sender: news@ksr.com Lines: 35 sb380@cs.city.ac.uk (Andy Holt) writes: >In <3674@vidiot.UUCP> brown@vidiot.UUCP (Vidiot) writes: >> It is virtually impossible to not have had access to a Unix >>system in one's career of computer science. If that is allowed to stand, >>AT&T will win every time. Yuch. >But that could wreck any AT&T claim to "trade secret" status - I suspect >_far_ too many people have seen the code for such a claim to stand. Every single person in the world save one could know a given "trade secret" if AT&T had a signed piece of paper requiring each of those knowledgable individuals to treat the material as confidential (and note that if you worked for a site which had a source license, your acceptance of your terms of employment is the same as accepting the contract your employer signed to get the source license). AT&T has previously gone after "stolen" copies of UNIX, and restricted the use of the "Lyons book" that was used in the operating systems course at the University of New South Wales (UNIX V6 source code and explanatory material, in two highly convenient books). Since UCB was not authorized to disclose any trade secrets, then IF the NET2 sources really contain such trade secrets, AT&T could (I think) demand the recall or destruction of any copies of it. AT&T's problem might be that they have been too slow to act -- in particular, "The Design of the 4.3BSD Operating System" has been out for quite some time, and presumably would have disclosed the same trade secrets (one hopes that they will try to avoid claiming anything that *they* published in the Bach book, to avoid looking really stupid). They could wind up in a situation where they can successfully claim that trade secrets were revealed (and thus they are owed damages from BSDI and UCB) but they lose the trade secret status (which would presumably *increase* the damages they are owed, since they have had a valuable "property" destroyed). Consult a lawyer if you really care to know about all this (or if you have ever seen the grim word "login:" on a screen, since your mind is now a wholly- owned subsidiary of The Death Star...).