12 Jan
2022
12 Jan
'22
6:03 a.m.
On Tue, Jan 11, 2022 at 4:57 PM Warner Losh <imp(a)bsdimp.com> wrote:
On Tue, Jan 11, 2022 at 1:08 PM Clem Cole <clemc(a)ccc.com> wrote:
See
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/UNIX_System_Laboratories,_Inc._v._Berkeley_So….
for a summary (see Pretrial section) and
http://sco.tuxrocks.com/Docs/USL/Doc-92.html for the ruling itself that
discusses the details).
"Consequently, I find that Plaintiff has failed to demonstrate a likelihood
that it can successfully defend its copyright in 32V. Plaintiff's claims of
copyright violations are not a basis for injunctive relief."
being the appropriate quote. Plantif == USL.
Warner
The AT&T case basically said that once the
implementations was released,
AT&T could no longer call anything a trade secret, although they *do the
own the IP and copyright*
Not entirely true. There was a preliminary ruling that said that 32V might
have lost its copyright protections because it was distributed outside of
AT&T without proper copyright notices, as required by the pre-1980
copyright law. This detail was what caused AT&T to settle before it could
become finalized (the preliminary ruling said there was a substantial
likelihood that this would be the outcome, to be pedantic). To the extent
that AT&T had complied with copyright laws requirements, they would retain
their copyrights though.