From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 From: jon@fourwinds.com (Jon Steinhart) Date: Wed, 06 Dec 2017 08:15:20 -0800 Subject: [TUHS] V7 Addendem In-Reply-To: <1512576671.3978479.1196132360.0C9F95D9@webmail.messagingengine.com> References: <20171206010736.GA16514@minnie.tuhs.org> <1512576671.3978479.1196132360.0C9F95D9@webmail.messagingengine.com> Message-ID: <201712061615.vB6GFKYd013874@darkstar.fourwinds.com> Random832 writes: > On Tue, Dec 5, 2017, at 20:07, Warren Toomey wrote: > > Ken tried to send it out, but the lawyers kept > > stalling and stalling and stalling. > > > > When the lawyers found out about it, they called every > > licensee and threatened them with dire consequences if they > > didn’t destroy the tape, after trying to find out how they got > > the tape. I would guess that no one would actually tell them > > how they came by the tape (I didn’t). > > I have a question, if anyone has any idea... is there any recorded > knowledge about *who was driving*? That is, beyond "the lawyers", who on > the business side of AT&T was making the policy decisions that led to > the various sometimes bizarre legal actions that caused problems for the > Unix world, and to what end (was there some way they expected to profit? > liability concerns?) > > In other words, what was the basis of the legal department's mandate to > try to shut these things down? (This question is also something I've > wondered for some non-Unix stuff like the E911 document, but that's not > relevant to this list) Can't answer your question directly, but I think that some of this was the result of the prior consent decree banning them from being in the data business. I seem to recall that it was technically illegal for them to sell SW and don't know how giving it away would have been viewed.