On Wed, Feb 7, 2018 at 2:49 PM, Theodore Ts'o wrote: > On Wed, Feb 07, 2018 at 12:27:34PM -0500, Clem Cole wrote: > > I fear, you are ​falling into an error of thinking about UNIX as the > *source cod* > > *​e from Murray Hill* as opposed the* intellectual property *->* i.e.* an > > *implementation* *vs,* *the ideas* of how to build the a computing > system. > > So what exactly were they claiming? An interface copyright on > open(2), creat(2), etc.? Were they they trying to claim that the > concept of an inode was at trade secret? How the Bourne Shell worked? > How to implement a virtual memory subsystem? > > The very first version of POSIX 1003.1 was released in 1988. This is > four years befure the AT&T lawsuit. So between the ideas found in > say, Multics, and those things which were promulgated in an > international standard --- which included AT&T representatives --- > exactly what would be covered under Trade Secret law? > > > ​ It is these two acts together that the court said, meant that AT&T > could > > not longer claim trade secret - they licensed it AND they told people > about > > it. > > That's basic Trade Secret law. That's *not* a new and novel law that > the court was promulgating. It's a basic legal principle taught to > undergraduates --- at least those who take "IT Law for Managers" > offered by the MIT Sloan School :-). (I always tell students that I > am mentoring that you they should strongly consider taking a basic > legal class and learn enough about accounting to read a balance sheet > and income statement). > > More to the point, Trade Secret works differently from Copyright or > Patent. If Alice reveals to Bob a trade secret under an NDA, and Bob > reveals it to the world, Alice can sue *Bob* for gazillions. But if > Bob publishes the trade secret in a Usenix ATC paper, and Charlie > learns about it from said Usenix ATC paper, and there is no NDA > between Alice and Charlie --- Alice does *not* have the power to sue > Charlie regarding the trade secret. > > Hence, the concept of "AT&T mentally contaminating the world" is > simply not how Trade Secret law works. And that is a reason why the > wise I/T manager might have to trade off using Trade Secret (where > protection lasts as long as you can keep it a sekrit) versus Patent > (where the protection survives even after it is publically disclosed > --- and you do have to disclose it --- but the protection is > time-limited). Yes: AT&T's legal argument was bad. Isn't that why they lost the lawsuit? :-D - Dan C. -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: