|
Removing a Rung From SCO's Methods and Concepts Ladder |
|
Tuesday, March 01 2005 @ 10:06 AM EST
|
Groklaw is, as you know, a group effort. So, while I was kicking up my heels at LinuxWorld, Dr Stupid kept slaving away in the Groklaw research dungeons. And he has found something so amazing, I think you will join me in thanking him for effectively blasting out one rung in SCO's ladder theory, the most important rung too, the one about methods and concepts, and their claim to contractually control what IBM can do with its own derivative works.
Both judges in the SCO v. IBM case have highlighted that issue, the contract issue, of whether AT&T retained control over modifications and derivative code, based on methods and concepts as opposed to straight copyright infringement, as being the one IBM needs most to disprove, at least by my understanding of their rulings. No doubt SCO's witnesses it offered declarations from, including Mitzi Bond, were a factor in the judges having to at least consider this issue and address it. It is with great pleasure that I present Dr Stupid's findings, therefore. As you will see,
it shows that Otis Wilson and David Frasure, in their declarations for IBM, are
correctly
recalling how things worked back in the day.
For context, you will recall that Mitzi Bond's declaration [PDF], which contradicts her bosses, Wilson and Frasure, (and AT&T attorney Geoffrey Green and all the other IBM witnesses), indicates that according to her current memory, methods and concepts were in fact covered by the AT&T license agreement terms, not just the code itself. Specifically, on page 4, she claims that "the agreements protected all of the innovations embodied in the licensed UNIX software, including, among other things, the structures, sequences, patterns, methods, and concepts." She also says that licensees had to treat any work "prepared with the benefit of having been exposed to our product -- regardless of how the license further developed or changed that product -- as if it were part of our original licensed product." Is that true? Let's see what a stroll down Google's memory lane reveals about AT&T policies regarding methods and concepts and also what Ms. Bond testified to in the earlier BSDi case back in the '80s. Ms. Bond quoted only a portion of that earlier testimony, and herein lies the tale. (Here [PDF] is the selection SCO attached to the Declarations of Jeremy Evans regarding SCO's Opposition to IBM's Motion for
Partial Summary Judgment on Breach of Contract Claims, and it's the section of her testimony that they feel is useful for their side.) .And let's also note an email from Ms. Bond herself on this very subject, dated July 24, 1987. What I now believe really happened is this: AT&T, after divestiture in 1984, briefly tried to put methods and concepts in as a part of the definition of what the term "Software Product" in the contract meant. The licensees, however, wouldn't accept the change and insisted on that language being removed, which AT&T did, by means of letter agreements and side agreements, just as we have seen with respect to IBM's license agreements. So at first, methods and concepts were not covered; then AT&T tried to make them covered; objections made it impossible for them to maintain that change, and it was dropped, or in AT&T's language, "clarified" away. SCO, to my eyes, is taking that brief attempt to broaden AT&T's rights, which failed, and trying to claim enforcement of something not even AT&T was able to enforce originally. See if that is what you get from the historical documents Dr Stupid has found.
*******************************
Your Word is your Bond?
~ by Dr Stupid
The Bond declaration references parts of Mitzi's 1992 deposition. This
in itself is interesting, since earlier SCO has denied
having any access to these depositions:
(8)
[IBM has asked for]“The pleadings, deposition transcripts
and deposition exhibits from UNIX System Laboratories, Inc. (“USL”)
suit against BSD.”
SCO does not have such documents in its custody, control or
possession.
While we don't have the full
deposition, we do have knowledge of other excerpts, thanks to the amicus
brief filed in the USL/BSDI litigation.
Read on:
"[fn11] The SOFT-00089
license agreement was intended to 'clarify' the prior intent of the
parties.Wilson Depo., at 139:10-140:1. AT&T's Director of
Licensing, Otis Wilson, testified that the language used prior to that
contained in the SOFT-00089 license agreement was 'somewhat confusing
to some people in that they thought we were trying to assert ownership
to anything they created, even though it contained nothing of ours. So
this is to clarify that what's yours is yours and what's ours is
ours' (emphasis added). Wilson Depo., at 75:24-76:4.
"USL's Mitzi Bond admitted that she understood 2.01(b)ii) meant
that 'enhancements and modifications made by the licensee were to be
made available to anyone so long as they did not include any portion of
the software products licensed under the agreement' emphasis added).
Bond Depo., at 137:19-138:19. [Dr S: this SCO do not
reference for some strange reason]
"However, Ms. Bond also has espoused a mental 'contamination'
theory by which any university student exposed to
AT&T code would be beholden to AT&T for any software
product he/she might subsequently develop. Bond Depo,at 220:2-13,
237:24-238:8. [Dr S: this is the section SCO reference]
"USL's Mitzi Bond participated in the preparation of [$echo]. She
testified that the clarification to 2.01 'indicates that all we
did was add a sentence to the existing one so that licensees would
clearly understand that we were not claiming the ownership in code that
they developed that didn't contain ours' (emphasis added). Bond Depo.,
at 189:14-191:21."
Unfortunately, the copy we have loses where the BSDI lawyers added the
emphasis they noted.
The first thing to note is that originally Ms Bond agreed with Mr
Wilson as to the intent of the agreement. How can we square this with
her espousal of the "mental contamination" theory? We can get a clue
from another
filing in the same case, BSDi's Opposition
To USL's Motion For Preliminary Injunction. Note that in this filing, the actual
quotes are redacted:
"After divestiture, which took place in 1984, AT&T began to market
its UNIX source code actively in the United States and in many other
countries as a commercial product. As a result of this widespread
licensing and the access permitted to students all over the world, as
USL admits, the UNIX source code has become 'world-renowned,' and
many portions of it have become industry standards. Although USL
may have strict internal safeguards in place, it has so widely
licensed its UNIX source code that it cannot be considered a 'secret'
by any stretch of the imagination. Indeed, since the source code has
been licensed to universities all around the country, most people
who have studied computer science at universities over the past
fifteen years have had access to the source code at some time,
E to the Forte Aff.). Further, the strict safeguards USL claims to
observe have not been observed by its thousands of licensees.
consequently, USL's licensed code periodically appears on publicly
accessible computers. (Bond Dep. T. 71-24 to 74-16;[fn4] Adams
Aff., ~ 10).
"[fn4] All citations to the deposition transcript of Mitzi D. Bond are
attached as Exhibit F to the Forte Aff.
"USL has also permitted numerous books to be written on the UNIX
source code. These books describe nearly every aspect of the code,
including its design, architecture, sequence, organization, structure,
implementation and algorithms, and provide instruction on how to
write UNIX-compatible code. See infra. Among other things, such
publicly available reference materials disclose the specific features
USL's expert relies upon as evidence of copying and trade secret
misappropriation. (See generally McKusick and Bostic Decl.; Kashtan
Aff., ~l 6, 8). . . . "2. The Header Files Which USL Claims Have Been Infringed Have Been
Included in Binary Distributions Made by USL Licensees With No
Copyright Notice.
"The binary version of the UNIX operating system has been even more
widely distributed than the source code version. Although current
binary versions of the code contain copyright notices, earlier
versions did not. (See Bostic & McKusick Decl., 28.4).
"Moreover, these binary distributions included some source code
files, and in particular, included the header files USL accuses the
University of copying in Net2. (Bostic & McKusick Decl., ~ 28.4;
Kashtan Aff. ~ 8).
"USL itself has never distributed binary code, but has sublicensed
numerous other companies to distribute binary versions of its UNIX
operating system, placing no limitations on whom they could license
it to, other than those required by law. Thus, USL cannot possibly
argue that the distribution of the binary code (including the header
files in source form) was a limited publication. Not only is it
impossible for USL to meet the 'definitely selected group' test, but
simply offering a work 'for further distribution,' as USL did with its
binary code, in itself constitutes a general publication of the work.
See White, 193 F.2d at 746-47; Rexnord, 379 F. Supp. at 1197. Thus,
USL has no basis for claiming any copyright in the header files. . . . "Although the language in these agreements was clarified over time,
the basic intent with respect to the University's right to use the
software and its confidentiality obligation was the same in each of
them. (See, Karels Aff., 1 24; see also Wilson Dep. T. 36-17 to 37-8).
Under each of these agreements, the University was authorized to
make modifications, enhancements and derivative works using the
licensed software. If a derivative work contained the licensed
software or disclosed any proprietary methods or concepts used in
the licensed software, it could be distributed only to those who had
purchased a source code license from AT&T. As demonstrated below,
however, if an enhancement, modification or derivative work did not
contain or disclose any AT&T proprietary information, it belonged to
the University, and was not governed by the restrictions applicable
to the licensed software. See discussion infra.
"2. The License Agreements Permit Derivative Works Not Containing
USL Trade Secrets To Be Made Available To Non Licensees
"Section 2.01(b) of the E-SOFT-00089 Agreement expressly provides
that the University was to distribute to anyone, on an unrestricted
basis, modifications and enhancements that did not include USL's
proprietary information. Likewise, Section 2.01(a) of the E-SOFT-
00089 Agreement, provides that derivative works "that contain"
licensed software must be treated as licensed software i.e, must be
subject to the same restrictions on disclosure as the licensed
software:
[Licensee's] right to use includes the right to modify such software
product and to prepare derivative works based on such software
product, *provided that any such modification or derivative work
that contains any part of a software product subject to this
Agreement is treated hereunder the same as such software product.*
(See Exhibit D-25 to Bond Dep.T. (emphasis added)).
"The negotiations leading up to the execution of this agreement, as
well as the prior course of dealing between the parties, make it
clear that the words "that contains any part of a software product
subject to this agreement" were intended to distinguish between
derivative works that actually contained licensed software and
derivative works that did not- while the former were subject to the
license restrictions, the latter were not. "In the negotiations leading up to the execution of the E-SOFT-00089
Agreement, USL initially proposed language providing that any
derivative work 'based on' the licensed materials was to be treated
as licensed software. The University objected to that language,
however, and insisted that it be changed to cover only derivative
works 'that contain' licensed software. USL accepted this
modification, providing a new version of the E-SOFT-00089
Agreement in which the language 'based on' licensed materials had
been changed to 'that contains' licensed software. (Wilson Dep. T.,
Exh. D-67 and D-68 (attached as Exhibits Y and Z to the Forte Aff.).
"This same clarification i.e., that only derivative works containing
AT&T code had to be treated as licensed software had also been
made in discussions surrounding a prior license agreement, the 'UNIX
System V Agreement'. This agreement initially included within the
definition of 'LICENSED SOFTWARE' any derivative works prepared by
the licensee 'based on' the licensed materials. The University
objected to that provision, which had not appeared in any of its prior
agreements with AT&T, and was contrary to its understanding of its
obligations. (See Karels Aff., ~ 23-26). Following discussions
regarding the provision, USL wrote a letter agreement to the
University 'clarifying' the definition of 'Licensed Software' by
deleting from the definition 'derivative works prepared by the
licensees'. The letter further stated that AT&T never had intended
to claim any interest in such works. (See Exhibit B to Karels Aff.;
Exhibit D-34 to Wilson Dep. T. (Bates P000243) (Exhibit aa to the
Forte Aff.)). In place of the prior language, a sentence was added
stating 'LICENSEE agrees that any modification or derivative work
prepared by it *that contains any LICENSED SOFTWARE* shall be
treated as LICENSED SOFTWARE hereunder.' (Emphasis added).
"USL now attempts to read into the earlier 32V agreement (which it
mistakenly argues applies), the same language that was deleted
from both the System V Agreement and the E-SOFT-00089
Agreement even though no such language appears in either of those
agreements. Contrary to USL's argument, this same point also was
clarified with respect to the April, 1979 Agreement: In a letter
dated January 18, 1978, the University inquired whether it could
distribute UNIX-derived software.[fn18] In a written response,
Edwin G. Baldwin, who was AT&T's Director of Technology Licensing
at the time, stated:
We take no position with regard to your use or distribution of
software developed by you which does not contain any of our
proprietary information such as, without limitation, the computer
programs and documentation, or any portion thereof, related to the
UNIX operating system, including the methods and concepts utilized
therein.
With regard to the distribution of any software which does contain
some of our proprietary information, our primary concern is the
prevention of unauthorized disclosure, either intentional or
inadvertent, which might jeopardize our valuable proprietary rights
in such information.
[fn18] Exhibit D-11 to Baldwin Dep. T. (attached as Exhibit bb to
the Forte Aff.).
(See Exhibit-12 to Baldwin Dep- T- (attached as Exhibit cc to the
Forte Aff.) (emphasis added)). Mr- Baldwin testified at his
[REDACTED]
(Baldwin Dep. T. 33-15 to 34-16). Mr. Baldwin further testified that
[REDACTED] "Another USL employee, Mitzi Bond,
similarly testified to her understanding that
[REDACTED]
[fn19] ?
(Bond Dep. T. 138-14 to 138-19, 137-13 to 138-13).
"After consulting with Ms. Bond during a break at the deposition,
USL's attorney cross-examined her, at which point she changed her
testimony, now stating that it was her understanding [REDACTED]
215-24, 216-20 to 216-25, 217-6 to 217-15, 219-3 to 219-15,
224-18 to 224-25). "[REDACTED]
(Frasure Dep. T. 172-11 to 172-20).
[REDACTED]
36-18 to 39-10, 49-20 to 50-2).
"Given that USL twice attempted to include a provision that any
derivative work "based on" the licensed software would have to be
treated as licensed software (in the 1983 System V Agreement and
the 198S E-SOFT-00089 Agreement) and both times the University
insisted that the language be narrowed to cover only derivative
works that "contain" licensed software -- the argument that the
intent was to cover any work "based on" the licensed software, or
any work benefiting from knowledge of the licensed software, is
completely unsupportable, much less the argument that anyone who
has ever seen UNIX source code is "mentally contaminated" and may
never write another piece of code that is not subject to USL's
license."
The first page range regarding the Mitzi Bond testimony corresponds to the "agreeing with Wilson" section of her testimony in the BSDi case, and
the latter page range corresponds to the section quoted in the Bond declaration in the SCO case. In
other words, it appears the "mental contamination" aspect was something Bond came
up with not as a direct
result of her training from Wilson, et al., but after what might be
seen as "coaching" from USL's attorney during the break. This is information that is lacking from her current declaration.
I must hasten to add that one must not rush to conclusions about Ms
Bond from this observation. There are many possible reasons why she
might change her story -- for example, not having been involved in the
devising and drafting of the licenses and USL policy in general, she
may simply have been open to having her understanding "corrected" by
some prompting, albeit to a interpretation of the AT&T license that
not even SCO have put forward. But the key fact to take away is that
she was originally of one mind with Wilson -- her "contradiction" of him
is a later construct.
These documents date from 1992, at a time when the people involved
(Bond and Wilson, to name but two) were having to recall past policies.
Interestingly, a USENET discussion that broke out during the lawsuit
unearthed some documents that are more contemporaneous.
This
post is the first salient one from the thread (emphasis is mine):
From: dds@doc.ic.ac.uk (Diomidis
D Spinellis)
Newsgroups: alt.suit.att-bsdi
Subject: Re: What happened with AT&T's copyright clearing
procedure
[snip]
In article
dds@doc.ic.ac.uk (Diomidis Spinellis) writes:
>I seem to remember, that some public domain source code that
making the
>rounds of the net a number of years ago (five?) had a
statement from an
>AT&T person attached, stating that the code did not
contain and was not
>based on any AT&T intelectual property. It also
gave a contact for
>further enquires. The idea I got was, that if you had
some code that
>could have been AT&T's intellectual property you mailed
it to someone
>at AT&T who told you whether it was or not. Does
anyone know whether
>that procedure still exists, and if yes, why BSDI did not use
it, if no
>why it was dropped by AT&T?
Thanks to Alan Cox's memory, I managed to locate the file I was
talking
about. It is part of the uuslave distribution (an early
UUCP clone)
written by John Gilmore. The file s named CERTIFIC.ATT and
is dated
Jun 8 1987; I enclose a copy at the end of this
message.
An interesting
point is, that John Gilmore had
almost definitely been exposed to Unix
source code at that time.
Diomidis
----------------------------------------------------------------------
Return-Path:
Date: Mon, 23 Mar 87 23:49:43 PST
From: ihnp4!attunix!gcss20!gcdwf
Message-Id:
Apparently-To: hoptoad!gnu
John Gilmore,
Listed below is the source code for uuslave that you
electronically
mailed to me on February 20, 1987. Our product management
personnel
have reviewed this code and have determined that it was not derived
from source code from
versions of our UNIX(r) operating system. If
you have any further questions, please feel free to call me at
1-800-828-UNIX.
David W. Frasure
AT&T UNIX Software Licensing
--
Diomidis Spinellis Internet:
UUCP: ...!uknet!icdoc!dds
Department of Computing, Imperial College, London
SW7 #include "/dev/tty"
John Gilmore had been exposed to AT&T's UNIX code, and was
naturally steeped in its methods and concepts. The program, uuslave,
was intended specifically for UNIX (the two u's refer to
"UNIX-to-UNIX", as they do in UUCP.) and in fact was an unabashed
"clone" of an existing UNIX program. Yet Frasure is entirely
unconcerned by this, since the code was not a derived work of the UNIX source code - viz., did not
infringe the UNIX copyrights.
The follow-up
post closes our circle - again, emphasis mine:
From: gnu@hoptoad.uucp (John
Gilmore)
Newsgroups: alt.suit.att-bsdi
Subject: Re: What happened with AT&T's copyright clearing
procedure
[snip]
Thank you, Mr. Spinellis (who posted this).
I and some friends proposed a "sift" project at Jan '87
Usenix. The
idea was that some impartial Unix wizards would sift through
Berkeley
Unix and decide which parts were Bell, and which parts were
Berkeley,
and then get Berkeley and AT&T to verify that decision.
[snip]
I initially got involved with AT&T in checking the license
status
of software in a somewhat roundabout fashion. As a
contemporaneous
correspondence from me describes it:
Actually they first contacted me; I was working on uuslave and I
got
some anonymous warnings (relayed through friends) that said
AT&T thought
it was theirs and was going to "crack down" on whoever was
working on
it. I posted a challenge to the net, saying if they thought
it was
theirs they'd better come public or lose whatever rights they
might have
had in it. Someone in
AT&T forwarded it to the right people, who turned
out to be at the licensing dept at
828-UNIX, I sent them a copy, and
they gave it a clean bill of
health. They end up sending it to Summit
to be read over by the experts, which is why it's so slow -- I can
imagine your reaction to having to read a bunch of this stuff and
say
whether it's part of Unix or not, rather than doing more
development.
But there's way too much stuff that's not theirs which is hiding
in the
shadows of "they might sue us because we don't really know who
owns it"
and if AT&T really does want to control Unix, they'll have to
bite the
bullet and say what Unix really is and isn't.
(end of that excerpt. Here is another
with further history.)
The next two things I sent in were mdbm and rcs. I sent
mdbm on 25
March 1987, but it got lost inside AT&T because David
Frasure, who was
handling it, retired. I checked on May 29th and discovered
they
had lost it; talked with Chuck Green who took over for
Dave. I also
mentioned RCS and they said "send it too, we will do them both".
I sent both to Mitzi Bond,
who works for Chuck, on 1 June 1987,
in 9 shar files (one mdbm, 8 RCS). I checked to make sure
they
received it, and got email back from Mitzi on 13 June saying that
they
got it all and were sending it to the developers. I checked
again and
got mail on 2 July saying that Charlie Thiel in Summit was still
reviewing the code but expected an answer by the end of next week.
On 13 July, Mitzi was on vacation for a week. On 24 July I
got the
final answer by email:
Return-Path:
Date: Fri, 24 Jul 87 22:47:47 PDT
From: ihnp4!attunix!gcss20!gcmdb
Message-Id:
Apparently-To: hoptoad!gnu
To: John Gilmore
From: Mitzi Bond
Charlie Thiel at our UNIX software development group in Summit
called me back
to say that his developers has examined the code that you
sent. Their results
were basically indecisive. There was nothing in either set
of code to
determine that it was solely AT&T's. There was a lot of similarity but not
enough for AT&T to build a case to
say that this was strictly AT&T code
and its use in both instances is a
violation of the copyright of our
software.
Charlie also says that it is the duty of the University of
Maryland to protect
the software and their lies the responsibility in that particular
instance.
I apologize for taking so long to respond. I talked with
Charlie on Monday
when I returned, and again today for the final results, which
don't seem to
be as conclusive as we would have hoped.
Thank you for your patience.
-----------
(end of 2nd excerpt of old correspondence.)
[snip]
I think (personal opinion) that AT&T decided it was better to
risk
losing the big court case over this (refusal to help potential
infringers check if they were infringing) than to have to
certify, piece
by piece, that indeed major chunks of what the world thinks of as
"Unix"
did not actually infringe AT&T's rights.
[snip]
--
John Gilmore
{sun,uunet,pyramid}!hoptoad!gnu gnu@toad.com
gnu@cygnus.com
"It isn't given to us to know those rare moments when people
are wide open and the lightest touch can wither or heal."
So there you have it. If you sent some software you'd written to
AT&T to get clearance, did they look for "methods and concepts"?
Did they wonder
if you had "benefitted from" UNIX in writing it?
No.
Mitzi Bond herself, in effect, tells the writer that the criterion is
whether the work is a derived work in
the copyright sense. This was back in 1987, when there were
arguably more secrets to be protected in UNIX; and it also chimes with
David Frasure's words regarding uuslave, as well as his (and Wilson's)
later recollections.
|
|
Authored by: Reliant on Tuesday, March 01 2005 @ 10:07 AM EST |
For the on-topic off-topic posts [ Reply to This | # ]
|
- Fact discovery deadline - Authored by: tangomike on Tuesday, March 01 2005 @ 10:51 AM EST
- bang!paths! - Authored by: Anonymous on Tuesday, March 01 2005 @ 11:34 AM EST
- bang!paths! - Authored by: Anonymous on Tuesday, March 01 2005 @ 01:44 PM EST
- bang!paths! - Authored by: brt on Tuesday, March 01 2005 @ 04:27 PM EST
- cheap shot - Authored by: jsoulejr on Tuesday, March 01 2005 @ 02:16 PM EST
- European patents, the letter to Parliament - Authored by: Chris Lingard on Tuesday, March 01 2005 @ 02:29 PM EST
- Maureen O'Gara Airs Concerns About Open Source "Zealots" - Authored by: Anonymous on Tuesday, March 01 2005 @ 02:47 PM EST
- John Gilmore - Authored by: MathFox on Tuesday, March 01 2005 @ 03:05 PM EST
- "Open Solaris may go down in history as one the finest examples of business strategy ever" - Authored by: Anonymous on Tuesday, March 01 2005 @ 05:34 PM EST
- KPMG times 3 at Canopy - Authored by: codswallop on Wednesday, March 02 2005 @ 02:09 AM EST
- OT Here - Authored by: Anonymous on Thursday, March 03 2005 @ 04:36 PM EST
|
Authored by: Reliant on Tuesday, March 01 2005 @ 10:08 AM EST |
Because not everything can be done right the first time [ Reply to This | # ]
|
|
Authored by: blacklight on Tuesday, March 01 2005 @ 10:21 AM EST |
I think DrStupid and PJ just gave SCOG another reason to wish groklaw had never
existed - The only thing that could be possibly worse than a good opposing
lawyer is opposing legal research that will stand up in court and that will be
utilized by that lawyer.[ Reply to This | # ]
|
|
Authored by: belzecue on Tuesday, March 01 2005 @ 10:23 AM EST |
"this SCO do not reference..."
should be
"this SCO does not reference..."
It's a common one, Dr S, so no big deal, but it still needs fixing where it
occurs here.
SCO is singular, not plural. Ditto IBM. A single entity. We don't have two
SCO/SCOs wrecking up the place, just the one.
A good test for this type of error is to substitute a name for the entity in
question:
"John do not reference..." -- and it lights up like a beacon.[ Reply to This | # ]
|
|
Authored by: rand on Tuesday, March 01 2005 @ 10:51 AM EST |
Fantastic Doc! I noticed one other thing immediately:
AT&T was used
to reviewing code to see if it was derived from UNIX; it was seemingly
routine.
They didn't need to see all the various versions or the
programmers' notes: just send us your code, we'll look it over and give you a
yay-or-nay.
Gee, do you suppose AT&T's successor-in-interest could do
that?
--- The wise man is not embarrassed or angered by lies, only
disappointed. (IANAL and so forth and so on) [ Reply to This | # ]
|
|
Authored by: rcbixler on Tuesday, March 01 2005 @ 11:05 AM EST |
<irony>See? It just goes to show what a bunch of code
thieves these open source programmers are. And cheeky
ones too. They even tried to get us to condescend to look
at our stolen code.</irony>
But, seriously, good work "Dr. Stupid"!
[ Reply to This | # ]
|
|
Authored by: Anonymous on Tuesday, March 01 2005 @ 11:09 AM EST |
It would be interesting to dig up more information about Mitzi's prior
depositions, especially of her change in testimony regarding AT&T's software
license.
This and her emails (if more can be found), would be useful in contradicting
her current testimony.
IBM, are you hearing this?
Can IBM or Groklaw obtain more of the sealed documents from the BSDi vs.
AT&T case?[ Reply to This | # ]
|
|
Authored by: Anonymous on Tuesday, March 01 2005 @ 11:26 AM EST |
Her latest declaration is just clever words because everything in it was clearly
about derivatives. What she did not say is more relevant than what she said. She
never talks about non-UNIX code alone, there is always a reference to UNIX code.
The quote: "prepared with the benefit of having been exposed to our
product" is clearly about derivative code not about non-derivative code.
Only derivative code would get a 'benefit' from the original code as
non-derivative code is independent of the original code.[ Reply to This | # ]
|
|
Authored by: cricketjeff on Tuesday, March 01 2005 @ 11:49 AM EST |
Surely if SCO has denied having any access to something IBM asked for in
discovery, and then testified it has complied as fully as possible with that
discovery they should be estopped from using any part of anything they
"haven't got"?
Contempt of court springs rather strongly to mind.[ Reply to This | # ]
|
|
Authored by: frk3 on Tuesday, March 01 2005 @ 12:26 PM EST |
Now, I seem to recall that in some past articles and posts here on Groklaw,
that there was a difference (significance of differences I do not recall)
between the educational licenses versus the commercial licenses.
The article
deals with USL and U.C. Berkeley in regards to the educational license. However,
it is apparent from the documents and quotes gleaned that the same "viewpoints
on derived words and methods and concepts" by USL (and AT&T) would be the
same for commercial licenses.
Are there majorly significant differences
between the commercial and educational licenses, to the extent, that it might
change the the viewpoints on derived works, etc.?
I believe, for IBM,
that it does not matter given the side letter and @echo newsletter. And this is
probably the case for the majority of other commercial licensees (like Dynix). [ Reply to This | # ]
|
|
Authored by: fredex on Tuesday, March 01 2005 @ 12:30 PM EST |
PJ, Dr. Stupid, Wunderbar! Great researach, Thanks to you both!
Thinking of the Good Doctor (Dr. S.) slaving away in the dungeon reminds me of
the scene from the first LOTR movie wherein Gandalf is "slaving" away
in the archives in The White City looking for info on the ring, et al.
Long Live Groklaw![ Reply to This | # ]
|
|
Authored by: john82a on Tuesday, March 01 2005 @ 12:37 PM EST |
or perhaps no thread is necessary, since we would all cheer in our hearts out of
appreciation for your efforts and careful delineation.
but Bravo again, anyway
john hinton[ Reply to This | # ]
|
|
Authored by: Anonymous on Tuesday, March 01 2005 @ 12:47 PM EST |
This "mental contamination"-thing sounds like all of your future
coding is bound to USL and its successors, much like a peon is bound to the
land; i.e, not a slave, but still chattel. Peonage is illegal, so that alone
would invalidate the concept, unless someone proved that it *wasn't* peonage.
Just a thought.
Geek Unorthodox[ Reply to This | # ]
|
|
Authored by: Anonymous on Tuesday, March 01 2005 @ 01:36 PM EST |
Can IBM *use* unpublished testimony from a 3rd circuit trial court, which was
subject to a sealed, private settlement, and to which ruling they were not a
party? Obviously it doesn't set any precedents, since it wasn't an appellate
court, but... how can they use it otherwise? Subpoena the surviving
participants and hope they recall the details correctly? IANAL, but I would
have thought that it'd be kind of hard to use this sort of stuff.[ Reply to This | # ]
|
|
Authored by: Anonymous on Tuesday, March 01 2005 @ 01:43 PM EST |
Traditional journalistic style is that the people mentioned in news articles are
referred to by their first and last name on the first mention, and last name
only in subsequent mentions. (Exception made for articles that talk about two
people with the same last name).
Sure, it's a nitpicky thing from some dusty old style guide, but the point is
that some of these articles cast aspersions on people, and they deserve the
benefit of at least the appearance of respect and fairness before we bury them
in their own words. Failure to do so comes off as sarcastic or snarky, more
like a sensationalist talk show than journalism.
Sometimes it's a judgement call. Certain celebrities invite first name or
nickname treatment--Cher, The Artist Formerly Known as Prince, Dubya. Some have
stable egos and don't mind the attention (Linus).
But the heart of the issue is that groklaw, and by that I mean all participants,
tends to refer to _respected_ people by their last name. Nobody calls Stallman
"Richie" later in their text. Use of first names, or cutesy nicknames
out of turn is an indulgence that should be reserved for those we hold with
affection, not used on those upon which we heap derision.[ Reply to This | # ]
|
|
Authored by: Anonymous on Tuesday, March 01 2005 @ 02:03 PM EST |
It's more like cutting off about a foot off the bottom of one of the ladder
rails. (And you know what that results in.)
Excellent work!
[ Reply to This | # ]
|
- Ladder? - Authored by: frk3 on Tuesday, March 01 2005 @ 03:17 PM EST
|
Authored by: Anonymous on Tuesday, March 01 2005 @ 03:32 PM EST |
curse you Dr. Stupid!
curse you PJ!
curse you Groklaw!
(muttering to
himself) i would have gotten away with it all, if it wasn't for
those meddling
kids....nooooooo!!! [ Reply to This | # ]
|
|
Authored by: elderlycynic on Wednesday, March 02 2005 @ 05:14 AM EST |
> What I now believe really happened is this: ... See if
> that is what you get from the historical documents Dr
> Stupid has found.
This is a LOT closer, but still missing the corporate
inconsistency. There wasn't a clean change over time, but
a drift, and that meant that different parts of AT&T were
singing different songs at the same time. In particular,
the realisation that the draconian contract was a mistake,
not going to be accepted by customers and unenforceable,
predated the formal redefinition of the policy (even WITHIN
AT&T) by some years.
This is the explanation of why the stories of the senior
executives who were negotiating the major contracts
contradict those of of the junior ones who were dealing with
the run-of-the-mill ones. It was well-known at the time,
was the cause of our difficulties, and is why Unix (and,
earlier, roff) did not spread into European academia outside
computer science. I was at one stage removed from at least
THREE sides (including two AT&T ones), apparently unlike
most Groklaw posters.
The IBM deal was a VERY major contract and was fairly late,
and I am absolutely certain that the newer, more reasonable,
interpretation would have been used. As I said, I was told
this by someone one level removed from the main negotiators
at the time. IBM would NEVER have knowingly signed a
contract that one-sided - and were still smarting from the
way that they had been suckered by Microsoft!
But it DOES mean that your attempts to pick holes in the
evidence of ex-AT&T people who say the opposite is unfair
on them, and barking up the wrong tree. What they are
saying is and was absolutely true - just not relevant to
this contract.
[ Reply to This | # ]
|
|
Authored by: darkonc on Wednesday, March 02 2005 @ 03:44 PM EST |
When BSDi came out they used things like the phone number 1-800-its-UNIX . In
other words, they violated the Unix Trademark. Violating copyright is
one thing. You can bide your time and knock them over the head 5 years later.
Trademark, on the other hand was use it or lose it, so the AT&T lawyers
dutifully suited up, loaded their briefcases and headed out on the
warpath.
Once they filed suit on the trademark issue, they were pretty much
bound (politically, if not legally) to also go after BSDI for copyright and
trade secret issues as well. AT&T won hands-down on the trademark issue,
but pretty much got their heads kicked in on copyright because there was way
more BSD code in SYSV with it's copyright removed (the only requirement of the
BSD license) than there was AT&T code inadvertently included in
BSDi. --- Powerful, committed communication. Touching the jewel within each
person and bringing it to life.. [ Reply to This | # ]
|
|
Authored by: Anonymous on Wednesday, March 02 2005 @ 04:20 PM EST |
I'm guessing 198S should be 1985. [ Reply to This | # ]
|
|
Authored by: GLJason on Thursday, March 03 2005 @ 05:22 PM EST |
"Methods and Concepts" are only mentioned once in the Software
Agreement, in section 7.06 (a). This same section also releases IBM (and
other licensees) from most of it's obligations because of the last
sentence:
7.06 (a) LICENSEE agrees that it shall hold all
parts of the SOFTWARE PRODUCTS subject to this Agreement in confidence for
AT&T. LICENSEE further agrees that it shall not make any disclosure of any
or all of such SOFTWARE PRODUCTS (including methods or concepts utilized
therein) to anyone, except to employees of LICENSEE to whom such disclosure is
necessary to the use for which rights are granted hereunder. LICENSEE shall
appropriately notify each employee to whom any such disclosure is made that such
disclosure is made in confidence and shall be kept in confidence by such
employee. If information relating to a SOFTWARE PRODUCT subject to this
Agreement at any time becomes available without restriction to the general
public by acts not attributable to LICENSEE or its employees, LICENSEE'S
obligations under this section shall not apply to such information after such
time.
RCU and NUMA are "methods and concepts"
developed by Sequent. They may have to be protected because they may contain
"methods and concepts" of memory management that existed in UNIX. The problem
though is that UNIX memory managment "methods and concepts" have been made
available to the general public in many books and, with AT&T's consent, by
the distribution of BSD under a very open license. Therefore the "LICENSEE'S
obligations under this section shall not apply to such information".
Think
of it as a car (as software and not patented machinery). Let's say IBM licensed
the Ford Model A from AT&T and was given the rights to create their own car.
Many others also license the Ford Model A and create their own cars. AT&T
loses a suit against Berkley and anyone can freely build Berkley's car if they
want and they know exactly how it works. The "methods and concepts" of how a
car operates are now available to the general public. IBM invents fuel
injection for their improved car, then lets everyone know how fuel injection
works and makes that knowledge available to everyone, so people start putting
fuel injectors in their Berkley cars. AT&T clearly (except to SCO) couldn't
sue IBM for telling people how their fuel injector works because IBM designed it
themselves, and if it contained any "methods and concepts" that weren't
available to the public, it wouldn't work with the Berkley car. That is
assuming that the Ford Model A doesn't in fact contain methods and concepts used
in fuel injection that are not present in the Berkley car.
[ Reply to This | # ]
|
|
|
|
|