NetNews Usenet Archive 1993 #3/NN_1993_3.iso/spool/alt/suit/attbsdi/852

Internet Message Format | 1993-01-28 | 3.7 KB

Path: sparky!uunet!charon.amdahl.com!amdahl!rtech!sgiblab!darwin.sura.net!newsserver.jvnc.net!netnews.upenn.edu!gynko!rsk
From: [e-mail] (Rich Kulawiec)
Newsgroups: alt.suit.att-bsdi
Subject: Re: UC Berkeley Embroiled in Computer Software Lawsuit
Message-ID: <[e-mail]>
Date: 28 Jan 93 01:20:00 GMT
References: <[e-mail]> <[e-mail]> <[e-mail]>
Sender: [e-mail]
Distribution: usa
Organization: Ditka Policy Institute
Lines: 62
Nntp-Posting-Host: gynko.circ.upenn.edu

In article <[e-mail]> [e-mail] (John Bass) writes:
>Unfortunately, it appears that most the respondants are to young to have
>any actual memory of the events first hand ... and are just parroting
>the folklore they have learned.

Now, why would you think that some folks are too young?  I'm certainly not,
as I cut my teeth on my first Unix system around 1978.  (I spent most of
the last decade at Purdue, where, thanks to many cooperative relationships
with AT&T and Berkeley, we were able to contribute a little to some of the
developments that have taken place in the Unix world.  The history of
most of this is not folklore to me; it's an experience I lived through.
I know a few folks here and there on both sides of the issue.  I watched
AT&T Unix go from v6 to v8, BSD from 3.0 to 4.3, and so on.  And, as
someone who has seen all kinds of source code thanks to the cooperation
mentioned above, I have more than a passing interest in this litigation.)

>If you are telling me that the Faculty/Staff at Penn are not capable
>of seeing blatant plagiarism ... then maybe we need to be concerned about
>your school as well.

I am telling you no such thing.  I believe you're quite aware that everyone
here speaks for themselves unless they explicitly note otherwise; this
is doubly true in my case as Penn is not "my school".  As to whether or
not I or anyone else here are capable of seeing blatant plagiarism, I
can only answer for myself -- and the answer is "Yes, I can."

I will point out, however, that your repeated assertions that plagiarism
took place are not proof: they are merely assertions.  I am content,
for the most part, to sit back and wait to see what is revealed in
a court of law.  As Holmes said, "To theorize in advance of the
facts is a capital mistake."

>> In the interim, I'll give UCB grads the same consideration in hiring that
>> I give to everyone else; to do any less would be unfair.
>
> [argument misinterpreting due process clause deleted ]

I stand by my statement.  There is no reason, at this time, to treat
any UCB grad differently from any other grad vis-a-vis the AT&T-BSDI
matter.  *Even if* Berkeley winds up on the losing end of all this,
there is no reason to penalize newly-graduating students who were
in grammar school when this started -- nor to penalize anyone, in fact,
who wasn't involved.

>One IS GUILTY from the time they pull the trigger,
>due process is only the means we use to protect those falsely accused.

Not in this country.   One is guilty when one is found so by a court of law.
Due process is the means we use to protect everyone: guilty or innocent.
I suggest a reading of the case law on the topic; Gunther's "Constitutional
Law" (11th edition Foundation Press) includes a substantial section
on due process.

>The facts surrounding USL vs. UCB are in plain view.

Not by a longshot.  There are many, many unanswered questions and missing
bits of information on both sides of the case...which is exactly why
this is not the time to leap willy-nilly to conclusions about who
has done what to whom and when.  A more prudent course would seem to
be to wait...and watch.

---Rsk