home *** CD-ROM | disk | FTP | other *** search
- Newsgroups: gnu.misc.discuss
- Path: sparky!uunet!algor2.algorists.com!jeffrey
- From: jeffrey@algor2.algorists.com (Jeffrey Kegler)
- Subject: What is LPF position on AT&T v. BSDI?
- Reply-To: jeffrey@algor2.algorists.com (Jeffrey Kegler)
- Organization: Algorists, Inc.
- Date: Fri, 24 Jul 92 02:00:23 GMT
- Message-ID: <1992Jul24.020023.10999@algor2.algorists.com>
- Lines: 48
-
- The AT&T suit against BSDI has (as might be expected) generated
- considerable discussion on comp.unix.bsd. A lot of alternatives have
- been tossed back and forth. I have just posted the suggestion that
- all concerned show their concern by joining the League for Programming
- Freedom.
-
- I am somewhat handicapped here in that, while a proud member of the
- LPF, I to no degree speak for it. I assume that as we speak it is
- studying the suit and will come out with a position.
-
- Specific questions:
-
- 1) I assume the LPF has no opinion on the matter of the status of the
- trademark on the term "UNIX". Is this right?
-
- 2) I assume the LPF has no opinion on the matter of whether BSDI can
- use 800-ITS-UNIX as its phone number. Is this right?
-
- 3) From reading the legal docs, AT&T, while not alleging any trade
- secret, copyright or patent rights in BSDI's software, leaves open the
- possibility of expanding the suit to allege such. I assume that if
- they "clarify" their position to indicate they do not intend to assert
- such rights, instead restricting themselves to trademark and false
- advertizing issues, untainted by other intellectual property issues, LPF
- will take no position on the matter of AT&T v. BSDI. Is that correct?
-
- As I read the legal docs, they are a bit strange. AT&T, as I said
- above, does not allege any property rights in the software, but
- demands the court grant it injunctive relief for such rights anyway.
- (You really have to download the originals and read them yourself to
- believe it, I think.)
-
- The AT&T argument goes like this:
-
- 1) You (BSDI) claim you are distributing UNIX.
- 2) This is false, so you must stop claiming it.
- 3) And, since you are distributing UNIX, you must license it from us.
-
- I think the lawyers call this arguing in the alternative. One argues
- two mutually exclusive points of view, under both of which your client
- prevails. That way, whatever the court decides, you win.
-
- If only we could program computers in the alternative!
- --
-
- Jeffrey Kegler, Independent UNIX Consultant, Algorists, Inc.
- jeffrey@algor2.ALGORISTS.COM or uunet!algor2!jeffrey
- 137 E Fremont AVE #122, Sunnyvale CA 94087
-