On Tue, Jan 11, 2022 at 4:57 PM Warner Losh <imp@bsdimp.com> wrote:

On Tue, Jan 11, 2022 at 1:08 PM Clem Cole <clemc@ccc.com> wrote:
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.

See https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/UNIX_System_Laboratories,_Inc._v._Berkeley_Software_Design,_Inc. 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.