decoration decoration
Stories

GROKLAW
When you want to know more...
decoration
For layout only
Home
Archives
Site Map
Search
About Groklaw
Awards
Legal Research
Timelines
ApplevSamsung
ApplevSamsung p.2
ArchiveExplorer
Autozone
Bilski
Cases
Cast: Lawyers
Comes v. MS
Contracts/Documents
Courts
DRM
Gordon v MS
GPL
Grokdoc
HTML How To
IPI v RH
IV v. Google
Legal Docs
Lodsys
MS Litigations
MSvB&N
News Picks
Novell v. MS
Novell-MS Deal
ODF/OOXML
OOXML Appeals
OraclevGoogle
Patents
ProjectMonterey
Psystar
Quote Database
Red Hat v SCO
Salus Book
SCEA v Hotz
SCO Appeals
SCO Bankruptcy
SCO Financials
SCO Overview
SCO v IBM
SCO v Novell
SCO:Soup2Nuts
SCOsource
Sean Daly
Software Patents
Switch to Linux
Transcripts
Unix Books
Your contributions keep Groklaw going.
To donate to Groklaw 2.0:

Groklaw Gear

Click here to send an email to the editor of this weblog.


To read comments to this article, go here
Otis Wilson -- the 1992 BSDi Deposition and a 2003 Declaration
Thursday, October 21 2004 @ 01:00 AM EDT

Here is the 1992 Deposition of Otis Wilson, done in connection with UNIX System Laboratories, Inc. v. Berkeley Software Design, Inc. and the Regents of the University of California and which SCO now purports to believe contradicts his current testimony, which you can read in a December 2003 Declaration. These are both paper documents that had to be scanned in and the 1992 deposition is 167 pages long, so I am sure you will join me in saying thank you to Frank Sorenson. You will remember also the segment of Mr. Wilson's June 2004 Deposition, attached as an exhibit to the sealed Declaration of Todd Shaughnessy in support of IBM's Motion for Partial Summary Judgment on Breach of Contract Claims, which we already had.

There are some differences, but that's because he is talking about two different types of licenses, two different types of situations, two different time periods, different code, and different licensees. SCO is, I believe, therefore comparing apples and oranges. The 1992 deposition is about *educational* licenses, not commercial licenses, which the 2003 declaration and the 2004 deposition are all about, and it's talking about an earlier time period from the time when IBM entered into its licensing agreement with AT&T. Even in the 1992 deposition, Mr. Wilson testifies that everything changed in 1984. IBM's license agreement is dated 1985.

The 1992 deposition discusses the early days of AT&T licensing to universities, which Mr. Wilson in his 2003 declaration says AT&T deliberately wanted to spread on favorable terms to get Unix adopted broadly as a standard "by ensuring that UNIX System V ideas, concepts, know-how, methods and techniques would be widely known and understood by future programmers." The corollary to that adoption, of course, was that a lot of people got to see AT&T's source code, so that today, he says, "it is unlikely that there are many, if any, parts of the UNIX System V source code that could be said still to be confidential."

Does SCO not know this? Unless they have no geeks on the team, which I suppose is possible, but unlikely, they would have to know, I think. Maybe they figure it's worth a shot, since Judge Wells may not have any geeks on board her staff. I just can't see why they think this deposition means anything in the IBM context. And even if they succeeded in undermining Mr. Wilson's credibility, and they certainly don't to me, what about all the others who have also stepped forward and support Mr. Wilson's testimony? I haven't noticed SCO addressing that at all. It's so overwhelmingly on IBM's side, all the testimony, that this is a bit like SCO is spitting into the ocean. They may feel better, but it doesn't impact the ocean much.

He cites in the 2003 declaration the "Lions Commentary on UNIX 6th Edition with Source Code," by John Lions, which was published with the permission of Santa Cruz and is now available to anyone without restriction. It includes a complete source code listing of AT&T's UNIX Operating System Source Code Level 6. He also cites "UNIX Internals, A Practical Approach," published in 1996 by Steve Pate, then a Senior Kernel Engineer at Santa Cruz, which describes in detail the internals of SCO OpenServer Release 5, "a Unix operating system that is a sublicensed product based on UNIX System V Release 3.2 ('SVR3.2')". This book too has no confidentiality restrictions. For that matter, he says that he understands SCO has made Unix source code available over the internet with no legally binding confidentiality agreements.

In paragraph 39 of the 2003 declaration, he says AT&T itself distributed source code to the general public without restriction, when between 1985 and 1996, a subsidiary of AT&T sold "thousands of used or discontinued AT&T computer systems, hundreds of them from Bell Laboratories, that some of the computers included UNIX System V, Release 3 and Release 4 source code, and that AT&T did not impose any confidentiality restrictions on the purchasers. If this is true, based on my understanding of the license agreements, any of the information on these computer systems would be considered 'available without restriction to the general public'" and thus no longer subject to confidentiality provisions of software agreements, and he adds:

"AT&T granted IBM the right to disclose UNIX System V ideas, concepts, know-how, methods and techniques embodied in SVR3.2, as discussed above. As a result, IBM may properly disclose any such UNIX System V ideas, concepts, know-how, methods and techniques to anyone, at any time, without restriction. They are, thus, 'available without restriction to the general public'."

Interestingly, in paragraph 41, he even suggests that SCO, when it released certain products under the GPL, may have included UNIX System V source code in those products, and whether that was deliberately or inadvertent, his understanding is that the result would be source code no longer subject to any confidentiality restrictions.

So, over time, things changed. SCO would like to stick to the '70s and early '80s, as if nothing had happened in the interval, I suppose, but times did change, and so did the licenses, not to mention the code. In the 1992 deposition, the conversation is about educational, not commercial, licenses, because one of the parties to the lawsuit was the Regents of the University of California. Mr. Wilson discusses licenses of several types, first version 7 licenses, then 32 V licenses, but in the context of the educational licensing framework. He testifies that there were different grants of rights and terms in the two types of licenses, though he never describes the commercial terms at all. I am baffled as to how SCO thinks there is a contradiction, therefore.

He is quite clear that the University had no issues about what was or was not a modification or derivative, because they were not selling anything for profit. In fact, that was a requirement under the educational license -- you could recover costs but not make a profit under the terms of the license. He can't remember ever having any conversations about the definition of what belonged to the university and what to AT&T, because to the university it was, he says, "moot". When they shared source code with someone, they just told that entity to get a license from both AT&T and from the university, and that way research proceeded.

It's patently obvious, then, that he isn't talking about a situation that applies to IBM in any fashion. That would appear to explain any differences in definitions between the two testimonies. Not that I see much difference anyway. Mr. Wilson is not a lawyer, from what I can tell, and he had a fairly loose understanding of some terms. He had never heard of the term "side letter", for example, back in 1992, until the deposition, and his concept of "methods and concepts" back then is certainly not fine-tuned in a lawyerly way. In the 2003 declaration, he acknowledges that it was a catch-all term they made up and deleted from IBM's contract in the Side Letter, because they were not aware of any methods and concepts in System V that needed protection by that time, see page 6, paragraph 14. He says by that time, they had distributed so broadly, "the internal structure was well known in the academic community and by computer programmers generally." They did that to get their operating system widely accepted. They knew that universities made the source available to students who were not bound by confidentiality obligations, but they took no action regarding such breaches, unless the student tried to commercialize the software. They wanted adoption so they could collect royalties, which trumped their interest in confidentiality at that time.

Despite some aggressive questioning and, to me, attempts by one attorney to get him to say things he didn't want to say -- at one point he does say methods and concepts were included in the definition of licensed software, as you will see, but it feels to me like the lawyers were understanding it in legalese and he was not, and repeatedly he draws back and tells the attorney that he viewed the contract as a whole, not one word or one phrase on its own -- Wilson over and over again in the 1992 deposition says that AT&T had no interest in work done by licensees, only in protecting their own IP to the extent it was incorporated therein. In fact, universities were free to release their work, so long as they made it freely available without discrimination, which is something I understand SCO asserts IBM does not have the right to do.

You will note that the deposition ends for that day, but they mention that there was to be a second day, and we have no idea what he said on the second day. For that matter, we have no idea what he said later at all. He mentions in the deposition that he was tired and that it all was so long ago, he might, after a good night's sleep, recall some other, as he puts it.

I took some notes as I went along in reading the 1992 deposition, kind of the way I would if I were highlighting sections for an attorney if at work, noting the things that stand out, and here they are. I actually read all 167 pages, and here is what I observed:

P. 10 -
Otis Wilson was deposed about "educational licenses", such as with the University of CA, Berkeley

p. 13 -
Exhibit 34 "Again, it looks to be a copy of the educational software agreement with the University of California at Berkeley."

P. 14 -
"Mr. Kennedy: Simply for clarification, because there are various documents within the exhibit, you are referring to the educational software agreement effective July 1, 1983, production number 212?

"MS. FITHIAN: Correct"

p. 15 -
"MS. SHAPREU:. . . I note the signature is August 15, 1984 for your signature. . . "

p. 17 -
Definition of "licensed software":

"Licensed software means all or any portion of the computer programs, other information documentation listed in the attached schedule for UNIX System V VAX version, and any additional schedule forwarded pursuant to section 2.03 of appendix A furnished to licensee by AT&T or any of its affiliated companies in conjunction with any provision of support services for UNIX System V or prepared by licensee as a modification of or a derivative work based on any of the materials so listed or furnished."

p. 31 -
letter re contract - "The intent behind all of these agreements is to protect the intellectual property but still providing the licensees the latitude to use it as they define their usage. The university wanted to make sure they had the proper grants to use it as they saw fit consistent with our licensing agreements, and they were very cooperative, by the way. The universities dealt with sharing of information between intellectuals and so they also always wanted to keep it protected. So the intent is to protect that which was ours and that which was theirs and we wanted to make sure we protected our information. By the same token, we didn't want to take any of their information. So if it was theirs, it was theirs, and if it was ours, it was ours.

p. 34 -
If enough licensees asked for clarification, "it would end up in one of these clarification letters" [details that the language was negotiated by the parties until all the participating parties could come to an agreement - in May 15, 1985

p. 35 -
"I recall several discussions regarding the use of the licensed software, and that's what the conversation revolved around, how you use the licensed software. Our intent was to protect that but not have any ownership of what they developed using the software. There were two types of licensees, those who used it as a tool and those who developed other things, and we were careful that we were providing the software for their use and not requiring us to give them the stuff back, as some licensing programs would have things like a grant back. We provided these under very favorable financial terms to the university. . . .

"Q: Now, under the amended definition, the last sentence that was added states, 'Licensee agrees that any modification or derivative work prepared by it that contains any licensed software shall be treated as licensed software hereunder.' Is that your understanding that under that sentence any modification or derivative work prepared by the licensee was to be treated as licensed software if it contained licensed software?

. . .. "A: The intent behind that language did not change from the original language. Contained, based on, reference to, that was all covered by that clause. That was the things we were trying to clarify. In other words, you couldn't -- one of the folks had a concern about once you are exposed to the technology do you take things away and learn things from that, and that was a situation you had to deal with. If you looked at the licensed software, were exposed to the licensed software, it would be very difficult to go forward without taking that with you. So if they had anything they developed that was based upon software, contained portions of the software or even putting -- we even had a thing about how we protect it. That was all licensed. The intent of that language is to say this is ours and that's yours, and universities were -- specifically the University of California -- always very clear what was AT&T software and what was theirs and they were very good at protecting it by making sure the proper licensing agreements were in place with any folks they were dealing with. The point I'm making is there's no change in intent between these two documents.

"Q: So in your mind the words 'based on' the licensed software means the same thing as 'contains' licensed software?

"A: Yeah, the intent is the same."

Note his annoyance on p. 54 - lawyer trying for pages before that to get him to define licensed software to include "based on."

p. 80 -
"Educational use is limited to uses directly related to teaching and degree-granting programs and uses in non-commercial research by students and faculty members, including any uses played in connection with the development of enhancements or modifications to software product . . . Such uses are permitted only provided that (i) neither the results of such research nor any enhancement or modification so developed is intended primarily for the benefit of a third party, (ii) such results, enhancements and modifications (all to the extent that they do not include any portion of software products) are made available to anyone (including AT&T-IS and its corporate affiliates) without restriction on use, copying or further distribution, nothwithstanding any proprietary right (such as a copyright or patent right) that could be asserted by licensee, its employees, students or faculty members."

p. 81-
"Such results, enhancements and modifications (all to the extent that they do not include any portion of the software products) are made available to anyone without restriction."

p. 82-
"Those rights were available through other licensing documents, and you cannot do something like that for someone under an educational license. This was not the proper license. So if you produced something under the educational license, you had to make it available to everyone. . . .

"Q" But specifically with respect to the words 'enhancements and modifications' it says, 'Such enhancements and modifications (all to the extent they do not include any portions of software products) are made available to anyone."

p. 86 -
"If it contains or is based on a licensed software product, you treat it as licensed software product. Because this is an educational license, you give up some type of exclusivity as opposed to that which you can do under the commercial. If you use the software in a grant, you have to make it available without discrimination of who can get it and who can't. So you can't have sponsored research and development under an educational license."

p. 91 -
UCal atty asks about another educational license, dated 1979, which on page 92 they identify as the standard version 7 agreement of that category "for the most recent version of software when I came on board like in 1980. There was always dialogue between licensees about their agreements, and this would have been the one we were talking about. . . . Yes, there was those types of communications directly and also indirectly and also the version 7 was the beginning of the exchange program kind of between licensees. Berkeley had a lot of exchange in software between licensees and it came up, 'If you have version 7 you get this, and 32V you get that.'

"Q: Regarding the source exchange program, just so I understand, you believe it commenced about the time period that this agreement was in effect?

"A: No, I think -- no, it was in effect prior to that time, but along about the late seventies or early eighties the use of the software started to proliferate at a more rapid rate than it had in the past and there was a lot more inquiries and exchanges."

P. 94 -
"A: This was an educational agreement. What happened was as the university expanded its use of the software through their system -- in other words, in the early days it was pretty much strictly in one specific lab that they were using the software for reasons other than running the business of the university and they were not really involved, as I recall, in the early days at that time with any type of specific projects with outside folks. . . . What started to happen is the versatility of the system started to expand its uses throughout the university and folks wanted to use it for different things that were not covered by the educational license, and eventually -- not specific times but over time -- the University of California acquired both educational and administrative and a commercial license. So there was dialogue about what types of rights they needed to use the software throughout the university system. . . .

"Clarifying the intent of the licensing agreement, what belonged to AT&T and what didn't belong to AT&T, because as the use of the software started to evolve and become more widely used, folks started getting in situations where it was just contained in one single laboratory for some specific research area and that was fine. But when they started to use it in the university for different things, there was dialogue about what rights they needed to do what they were doing. So there was always pretty good rapport and people saying, 'I want to use it for this, but it doesn't seem like it goes here. What does it cover and not cover?' . . .

"Q: Again, I know it was a long time ago, but can you give me the general substance of the face-to-face communications that you had with Joy, Towers or other individuals regarding what you considered to be the meaning of licensed software as contained in the UNIX operating system license?

"A: Most of those conversations geared on what was licensed software, you know, what was AT&T property, what could be their property and how to better make it available to other licensees. Along about this time frame, late '79, '80, '81, '82 was when the licensing community using our operating system started to go toward, 'Let's put object code versions on specific processes,' and they were trying to get into a commercial product which was going to be licensed to people in the commercial area and they wanted to make sure which things could be contained and not contained and who owned what, and sometimes it would become integrated where the licensed product along with something created by the university got combined and there was clarifying again about what was the intent of the agreement and if they wanted a sublicense how do they do that, and there were other documents saying how you license software and for what vehicles.

"Q: And focusing now on the meaning of what comprised software, what do you recall discussing regarding just that specific question, what comprised licensed software under this particular agreement?

"A: We used to talk about everything that was in the box that we sent, including the box itself. That was licensed software, but it was as defined in the agreements and included the documentation, the source code, the compiled object code version and the trade secret of any methods or concepts was all considered licensed software or things that you had to protect, including the disclosure, how you could actually share and under what conditions you could do that." [p. 94- he says "This was an educational agreement."]

P. 99 -
Specifies that this agreement was about "'licensed software' in the 7 V UNIX operating system license"

p. 101 -
Mentions another license between Western Electric and U of CA effective April 1, 1979 for 32V. and on page 102, Wilson says the meaning of licensed software was "what we've previously stated" but he doesn't distinguish which previous statement, and they are not identical.

"Later on as we go through you will see where they were collapsed into a single agreement. At this time -- this is before I got into the business -- they would have different licensing agreements for each release in technology and the language was pretty much they same with regard to what you protect and didn't protect and defined what was going to be protected and the variable was the appendices describing the actual technology.

"Q: For the record, the definition of licensed software in 32V states, 'Licensed software means the computer programs and the documentation or any portions thereof generally identified below and specifically listed in the attached schedule.' Then it states "UNIX 32 V timesharing version 1.0' Just so I understand, you previously testified regarding the 7 V version of the UNIX operating system license agreement and what you understood licensed software to be comprised of. Did your understanding of what comprised licensed software in this 32 V agreement change in any way at this time, at the time this agreement was entered into?

"A: No, not the general definition, which is one of the reasons we went to a single master agreement, because the intent behind the language was the same for both documents, but it more specifically identified by the particular release what was 32 V and version 7 and those specifics with regard to that particular technology would vary, but as far as the definition, the intent behind all of them is the same.

"Q: And the intent was what you earlier described in some detail?

"A: This morning you mean?

"Q: Under the version 7 agreement, is that correct?

"A: The intent was like I described this morning. In other words, the intent was that which was AT&T intellectual property was consistent going back to the earlier ones.

p. 104 -
"Q: So in your mind licensed software in the early eighties meant AT&T source code, object code, its documentation and methods and concepts?

"A: That's correct.

p. 107 -
He defines methods and concepts as "It's how it was put together, the ideas behind it that manifest itself in the technology. You can never come up with a better word. That's why I used methods and concepts, those things that were the embryo from which this technology sprung."

p. 108 -
He is asked if he ever had conversations about the meaning of methods and concepts: "Lots of time it would come up because folks would look at our licensing agreement -- we became pretty proud of it because we thought we had a pretty good document -- but folks would always want to talk about it. 'What do you mean by this or that?' Lots of times it would come up out of curiosity to see whether this was different or that was different, and more specifically when they had a specific -- I take that back, that was mainly with commercial, not very much with the university, not so much with the university, because they were very good about saying, 'Fine. If we are going to do anything with the source code or licensed software, we'll make sure everybody else gets a license,' and that didn't come up very much with the university, because they were mainly educational. So it didn't come up very much."

p. 109 -
another license is presented, for 32 V, dated Aug. 1, 1981, and it is a combined administrative and educational license between Western Electric and the regents.

p. 112-
"I remember lots of conversations regarding source code exchange from the standpoint of who had what licenses as opposed to what the definition meant. So it was a lot of conversation, like, 'We're going to source code exchange 32 V. Make sure party A has the proper license.' There was a lot of that kind of dialogue regarding licensed software from the standpoint of what licensing agreement covered that, and there were things in your files and ours with regard to what Berkeley designation included what AT&T intellectual property. . . What Berkeley would have the designation for intellectual property which belonged to the university and what AT&T intellectual property was a part of that particular product, like Berkeley 32 V, what AT&T software was actually a part of that based on that version. So there was -- so we had those kinds of dialogue and the university would come back and say, 'We got this release of Berkeley and it is based on version 7 or 32V,' or what have you, and there was dialogue defining which parts of ours was in which parts of theirs.

"Q: My understanding -- and please correct me if I'm wrong -- is that at least in the early eighties time period when the University of California-Berkeley developed code that was added to or enhanced or modified 32 V there was a 4.1, 4.2 and 4.3 and actually Tahoe product which combined both 32 V and Berkeley developments, is that correct? Is that your understanding? Is it terminology we can use together so we're talking about the same things as I ask you questions? If you have something else you would like to suggest...

"A: There was Berkeley nomenclature for software that they wanted to distribute to other licensees, so they would say, 'This is our nomenclature and this is what it means in Berkeley language and in AT&T language. Berkeley 4.0 is based on 32V, so anyone who wants to receive Berkeley 4.0 has to have the 32V.' That may not be exact, but this is Berkeley and this is what's AT&T and they are kind of synonymous with regard to exchanging. In fact, they would make source code exchange making sure both devices were in place and that was always verified with our office at least two ways. In a credit card routine, if someone presented the license I mentioned earlier this morning, somebody presented a piece of paper. Was that a valid license or a license that was till valid? So what they would do is they would after preliminary check about who was really licensed for a particular version and then they would verify that that person is still authorized by calling in and then we would verify that on a monthly basis by saying, 'What have you transferred and to whom?'

"Q: So for products that were comprised of both the UNIX operating system and Berkeley code, the communications that you had with the university, in what circumstances was Berkeley code considered to be Berkeley's property -- as you have been describing it today, theirs was theirs and yours was yours -- so under what circumstances did you communicate -- excuse me, let me ask that again. When there were communications with the University of California regarding what portion of your combined works was actually the university's property, what made that specific code that was Berkeley's their property?

"A: There was a lot of conversation like that, and the way the university chose to deal with it, which we were delighted with, was we didn't try to go through that dialogue. They were saying, 'Okay, if we have 32 V and that's what's being used, where this was being developed the recipient has to have a 32 V license.' In other words, the university didn't want -- it was almost impossible to police all the elements, but they knew if it had any exposure almost to AT&T intellectual property they would say, 'We are not going to try to split hairs.' So if they came to the source code exchanges, they would just say, 'Hey, you have to have a 32V license. Just get the license.' So that cut off those dialogues about which piece is this and which is that. The intent was the same, what's ours is ours and yours is yours. But to cut that up into what pieces were which, they would go to other way and just say, 'Hey, put the license in place and that way we're all protected.' They were very concerned about not jeopardizing the license, because the fees were getting higher and higher and they had very favorable conditions. So they said, 'Fine. You get your license. We had to get ours and you get yours.'

"Q: Are we talking in terms of communications in the early eighties time period . . . ?

"A: I was talking specifically about the early eighties, but that was also the same characterization through the later periods also. The university pretty much said, 'Okay, you go get the AT&T license.'

"Q: Do you have any recollection of any communications with anybody at the University of California about the two 32 V licenses we've looked at today in which modifications, enhancements and derivative works developed by the university were discussed in terms of Berkeley's ownership other than what you have just mentioned?

"A: No, I don't recall anything specific, because what's very vivid in my mind is how the university really was not concerned in dealing with what they called like those microissues about --

"Q: They were or were not? [p. 117:]

"A: They were not. . . . [specifies this is between 1980 and 1991]

"Q: So then in terms of detailed discussions with the University of California regarding when their product might be a modified work, an enhanced work or derivative work was their property or AT&T's property, there was no real detailed discussion that you recall with anybody at the University of California?

"A: No, it pretty much boiled down to version 7 or 32 V or whatever and, if that's the case, what license you have to have. That's pretty much what it boiled down to, again talking about conversations with the University of California. But with them and most universities they didn't have those types of issues, because they said, 'Hey, I can just cover both licenses.' and that was easy for the administrators and the legal department to deal with, because they knew that that covered -- it was like belts and suspenders, it covered everything."

p. 124 -
"But the intent was they couldn't do sponsored research or work for hire. That was the intent. Any time that occurred, they would raise the issue and it eventually led to the different licenses, because out of that concept came the commercial license to the government and so on and so forth."

p. 126 -
"Q: Do you believe that by the university's licensing of the UNIX operating system and their familiarity with the UNIX operating system that anything that the university subsequently develops would be a product that AT&T would have an interest in?

"A: No, we were very clear. We did not want ownership in that which was developed by the university using our licensed software products, which was somewhat different from other entities I knew of that would provide software to the universities under the educational-type agreement, which usually was at a very favorable cost, but if the university developed something you are going to let us have it back. So we did not do that.. . . But someone who said, 'I'm going to sell some stuff,' they had a commercial license and we had conversations about the different classes of licenses and they understood the grant of rights, because their fees were so low and most fees were high, and when people would come to get software from the University of California, they would say, 'Hey, talk to AT&T. We got the license.' That was the cost of doing business."

p. 128-129 -
He explains that if a developer was exposed to UNIX, he was mentally contaminated, but others could do the same methods and concepts in a clean room environment.

p. 129 -
He mentions that AT&T divested and he says it changed the marketing goals of AT&T from early 1984. P. 130 he says he became head of the unit and they took on "a more commercial focus" to the licensing program. P. 131 says 1983, 1984.

P. 133 -
He says somewhere in '84, "the big thing that occurred was folks became a lot more concerned about the licensing agreements" because AT&T was going into the hardware business.

p. 133 -
"Why? Because they said here is this big, huge, deep pocket company going into the hardware business and there was still a kind of cult following for the UNIX operating system folks doing little start-ups and creative with this technology and they didn't have to worry about anybody big. AT&T and IBM had not stepped into the ball game. All of a sudden AT&T is rumored and in fact the following year goes into the hardware business and now everyone is concerned that AT&T is going to take the licensed software and use it on their products and give us the old stuff, or our organization, the licensing organization, would be an intelligence conduit for licensees back to AT&T of what the competition was contemplating and that we would tell everybody everything. So we changed in '84 in that we are autonomous, and we dealt with protecting intellectual properties, treating both internal customers as well as external customers the same, and we were going to do it fairly, as best we could, for everybody, and if I talked to you and you had a box you are creating, that would be contractual information between the two of us and we were not going to reveal that. But that is what happened. The change was in the perception of what AT&T was going to do, and to make sure everybody was treated equally that was one of the driving forces I would use a lot of times to keep us as an outpost and we didn't get in the tooth of corporate here. We said, 'We are going to treat everyone equally internally and externally.' But that's kind of what happened in '84. We could turn out the documents a lot quicker, but then there was a lot of discussion about clarifying what this meant and that meant and those kinds of things. It became a lot more dialogue."

p. 141 -
He says derivatives and modifications were "a moot point" with universities "because they did not want to go down that path. They said, 'Let's have both licenses.'"

p. 141 -
"This is all so long ago. If I go home and sleep, next week I might recall some other."

p. 142 -
"See, the question focuses back on the educational license. So with regard to the educational license, no. But there were other licenses."

p. 144 -
"We've talked earlier about educational licenses and those things and those are the things -- there were conversations that we talked about earlier. If that's what you mean, yes, we had those conversations with regard to the grants under the educational license, and other than that I don't recall anything. But there were discussions with them about the educational license." [talking specifically about conversations with UCal Berkeley]

p. 150 -
Under the educational license, you could recover your costs, but you couldn't make a profit.

p. 151 -
Atty reads from paragraph 1.01(a) of the System V license agreement marked as Exhibit 34, paragraph (a)(ii): "such results, enhancements and modifications (all to the extent they do not include any portion of licensed software) are made available to anyone (including AT&T and its associated companies.)"

p. 153 -
Mr. Wilson had never heard the expression "side letter" until the attorney uses it in the deposition.


  View Printable Version


Groklaw © Copyright 2003-2013 Pamela Jones.
All trademarks and copyrights on this page are owned by their respective owners.
Comments are owned by the individual posters.

PJ's articles are licensed under a Creative Commons License. ( Details )