You can see why they would only use portions of her deposition, when you read the 1993 Amicus Brief by Defendants the Regents of the University of California Re Plaintiff's Motion for Preliminary Injunction in the BSDI case, which refers to Mitzi Bond's deposition, and which you can read in full on Dennis Ritchie's website. I think you will be able to guess what part SCO would like in her deposition, but the problem SCO has is, this is all talking about the Educational License, which did refer to methods and concepts, not the commercial kind that IBM has:
In other words, AT&T agreed not to claim ownership in any
derivative works developed by the University; however, the
University agreed that any derivative works which "contains" AT&T
code (i.e., "Licensed Software") would be treated as if it were AT&T
code and distributed only to AT&T licensees. See Frasure Depo., at
Shortly thereafter, AT&T further memorialized the parties'
understanding regarding ownership and distribution of Unix
enhancements by drafting the Educational Software Agreement No.
E-SOFT-00089 (SOFT-00089). Wilson Depo.,at 139:10 -140:1 (the
SOFT-00089 agreement was a "clearer representation of our
intent")[fn11]. This supplemental agreement executed in November
1985 expressly provides that AT&T claims no ownership interest in
the University's software as long as it does not contain AT&T's
source code or disclose its methods and concepts.[fn12] Consistent
with the May 15, 1985 letter-amendment (Exh. A to Karels Decl.)
SOFT00089 provides in its "Grant of Rights:"
Para. 2.01 (a) ...[the] 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 [AT&T] SOFTWARE
PRODUCT subject to this Agreement is treated hereunder the same
as such [AT&T] SOFTWARE PRODUCT. *AT&T-IS claims no ownership
interest in any portion of such a modification or derivative work
that is not part of a [AT&T] SOFTWARE PRODUCT.* (Emphasis added.)
Para. 2.01(b)(ii) ...results enhancements and modifications (all to the
extent that they do not include any portion of [AT&T] SOFTWARE
PRODUCTS) are made available to anyone (including AT&T-IS and its
corporate affiliates) without restriction on use, copying or further
distribution.... Exhibit G, attached to the Shapreau Decl.
Thus, again, AT&T agreed in writing that the University owned all
derivative code and that such derivative enhancements and
modifications should be made "available to anyone" to the extent
"they do not include" AT&T code.
[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. 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-
[fn12] USL's witness, Mitzi Bond, testified that the SOFT-00089
superseded AT&T's earlier agreements.Bond Depo., at 132:10-134:2.
Ms. Bond testified that a licensee's use of 32V on a CPU licensed
under SOFT-00089, would be subject to the terms and conditions of
SOFT-00089. Bond Depo., at 39:7-43:5 referring to Exhibit J,
attached to the Shapreau Decl..
[fn13] It appears that AT&T similarly tried to restrict other
licensees' rights with respect to code they derived from AT&T's
UNIX, because AT&T sent out a clarification to all its licensees in
August, 1985 which stated: "Section 2.01. The last sentence was
added to assure licensees that AT&T will claim ownership in the
software that they developed -- only the portion of the software
developed by AT&T." Exhibit H, attached to the Shapreau Decl. The
2.01 referred to in Exhibit H is the same 2.01 contained in the SOFT-
00089 agreement. Frasure Depo., at 1 08:21 -1 1 0; 1 1 2:7-21. USL's
Mitzi Bond participated in the preparation of Exhibit H. 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.
Finally, AT&T acknowledged the University's ownership rights in the
University's derivative BSD code in June 1986, when AT&T signed
license agreements with the University for 4.2BSD and 4.3BSD
(which originated with 32V). Towers Decl., at Para. 3 and Exhibit A,
attached. The agreement for 4.2/4.3BSD states in relevant part:
WHEREAS, *The Regents of the University of California (the
University) is the proprietor and owner of enhancements and
additions to 32V,* which together with parts of 32V comprise
computer programs and documentation entitled "Fourth Berkeley
Software Distribution ("4BSD)....(Emphasis added.)
* * *
Title: AT&T agrees that 4.2 and 4.3 contain proprietary software
belonging to the University. *AT&T shall have no right, title or
interest in or to such proprietary software* except as expressly set
forth in this Agreement. (Emphasis added.) Exhibit A, attached to the
AT&T's admission that the University 'owned'' the enhancements and
additions to 32V included the University's right to distribute its
software to the public, as evidenced in the testimony of AT&T's
former Director of Licensing, Otis Wilson:
Q: And you weren't trying to assert restrictions on the part [of the
software] that did not belong to AT&T?
A: That's correct. In other words, if you follow that through, it's
yours. I have no jurisdiction whatsoever. Wilson Depo., at 77:19-23.
Q:... 'when the university owns it,' do you mean that they are free and
clear of any restrictions by AT&T?
A: Right... Wilson Depo., at 122:5-10.