*BSD News Article 3492


Return to BSD News archive

Path: sserve!manuel!munnari.oz.au!mips!mips!swrinde!cs.utexas.edu!hellgate.utah.edu!fcom.cc.utah.edu!gateway.univel.com!gateway.novell.com!thisbe!terry
From: terry@thisbe.npd.Novell.COM (Terry Lambert)
Newsgroups: alt.suit.att-bsdi,comp.unix.bsd
Subject: Re: UNIGRAM's article on the USL-BSDI suit
Message-ID: <1992Aug5.174119.1201@gateway.novell.com>
Date: 5 Aug 92 17:41:19 GMT
References: <1992Aug1.020513.14170@plts.uucp> <1992Aug1.042344.23428@pasteur.Berkeley.EDU> <RV.92Aug4185218@tahoe.cs.brown.edu>
Sender: terry@thisbe (Terry Lambert)
Distribution: usa
Organization: Novell NPD -- Sandy, UT
Lines: 33
Nntp-Posting-Host: thisbe.eng.sandy.novell.com

In article <1992Aug4.124523.23674@crd.ge.com>, davidsen@ariel.crd.GE.COM (william E Davidsen) writes:
> 
>   The fact that BSDI wouldn't trust anyone in the world to look at their
> code in an unbiased way certainly suggests that they were not making the
> effort to avoid this suit.

	Just as "the fact that someone claiming 5th amendment rights to Senator
Joe McCarthy certainly suggests that they are communist sympathizers".

	The burden of proof is on the plaintif, not the defendant!  If AT&T has
a bone to pick, nothing prevents them from downloading the Net/2 (anonymously,
like everyone else, so not even AT&T can tell who does and does not have the
code) and doing the comparison.  The financial obligation of evidence gathering
is on AT&T, and is only *potentially* reimbursable as part of damages (maybe not
even then).

	If the problem AT&T has is *specifically* with BSDI code, I am sure that
BSDI would be happy to sell them a copy, or "trade software", as many companies
do.  Such a "trade" is admittedly equitable from AT&T's point of view, given
that they place such equal value on the code that they claim BSDI code *is*
their code.  If it is, then they haven't given away anything that BSDI does
not already have in it's posession.  If not, they have received equal value.

	This should not be necessary, in any case, as AT&T claims that the
infringing code path was by way of CSRG and UCB, not necessarily contamination
of programmers at BSDI.

					Terry Lambert
					terry_lambert@gateway.novell.com
					terry@icarus.weber.edu
---
Disclaimer:  Any opinions in this posting are my own and not those of
my present or previous employers.