[Info-vax] [Attn: HP Employees] PDP-11 OS hobbyist licensing

[Bill Gunshannon]

In article <bb3ftkFst8cU1 at mid.individual.net>,
	bill at server2.cs.scranton.edu (Bill Gunshannon) writes:
> In article <l2hvce$6g1$1 at speranza.aioe.org>,
> 	glen herrmannsfeldt <gah at ugcs.caltech.edu> writes:
>> Bill Gunshannon <bill at server3.cs.scranton.edu> wrote:
>>> In article <524b2edb$0$61281$c3e8da3$5e5e430d at news.astraweb.com>,
>>>        JF Mezei <jfmezei.spamnot at vaxination.ca> writes:
>> 
>> (snip)
>>>> HP suing some small company for a museum-worthy product HP never
>>>> marketed and didn't even know it had rights to. This would look 
>>>> very bad.
>>  
>>> To who?  It wouldn't even make the back page of any paper I 
>>> have ver seen.
>>  
>> (snip)
>> 
>>>>                                                             Would the
>>>> act of donating it to the museum constitute breach of copyright in the
>>>> sense that the museum would then take the IP and make money from it ?
>>  
>>> How much money do the people who steal music make from the things they
>>> steal?  This is also irrelevant.  Unless the license agtreement with
>>> the owner of the IP in question said you could do it, yes, it would
>>> breach the copyright.  I have tapes containing RT-11, RSX and RSTS that
>>> I got from Mentec along with a license to use them here at the University.
>>> It specifically requires that I ensure the covered software remains in my
>>> control.
>> 
>>>> Does the source of the PDP-11 operating systemns have any value today ?
>>  
>>> Irrelevant.
>> 
>> Is it really? 
> 
> Well, I guess it should be that percieved value is irrelevant.  Some
> people here seem to think that if they think the PDP-11 OSes have no
> value to HP then it is true.  I think the "music" (and I use the term
> very loosely) that kids are stealing today has absolutely no value.
> The RIAA doesn't agree and the courts tend to side with them.
> 
>>                Fair use takes into consideration the value and/or loss
>> to the copyright holder. 
> 
> Unlike a newspaper article or even a book, I don't think you can apply
> the term "fair use" to stolen software.  I know of case in the past
> where that defense has worked.  :-)

Ooops.  That shold be "I know of no case in the past where that defense
has worked.  :-)

> 
> And the way "fair use" works you would have to be just running 
> maybe 10% of the code.  How does that work?  :-)
> 
>>                           There are other considerations, too, but the
>> loss is a pretty important one. 
> 
> Loss can go a long way towards increased damages, but lack of value to
> the thief does not excuse their actions.
> 
>> 
>>>> Would its release harm HP in any way ?
>>  
>>> Irrelevant.
>> 
>> For compensatory damages, the loss and/or harm are considered.
> 
> That's true, but even in cases where the courts have awarded ridiculously
> low damage awards there are still frequently substantial legal penalties
> and potential jail time.
> 
>> There are cases (the one I am remembering was a libel case,
>> but it could also happen for copyright) where compensatory 
>> damages were awarded as $1, but very large punative damages.
> 
> Libel tend to be more difficult to even prove as it is damage to
> something intangible.  Theft of property. violation of a license,
> pretty much any copyright violation is easier as there is some
> form of material involved and either the thief has it or they don't.
> 
> 
>>  
>>>> Again, this is in a context where HP does not respond to requests to
>>>> open source the PDP-11 OS. If HP responded to those requests, my
>>>> attitude would be very different.
>>  
>>> HP has no requirement to cater to your whims.
>> 
>> (snip)
>> 
>>>> If a company does not protect its IP and keeps a blind eye to breaches
>>>> of copyright/patent infringement, it loses the right to defend that
>>>> IP/copyright later on.
>>  
>>> 1.  That is not necessarily so.  Try it and see where you end out.
>>> 2.  It still isn't "public domain" as that is a very specific legal
>>>    concept and the requirements are spelled out plainly in many
>>>    places.
>> 
>> I am pretty sure it is true for trademark. If you don't protect
>> them you can easily lose them. 
> 
> You can lose them, but they don't become "public domain".  Public
> Domain is a very specific legal concept.  Sadly, it is and for the
> most part has been very poorly understood.   Ask RMS about that.
> 
>>                                I believe also for patents, but
>> I am not so sure about that. 
> 
> LZW was unenforced for a very long time.  They didn't lose it.
> 
>>                                I don't know about copyright.
> 
> "Happy Birthday" comes immediately to mind.
> 
> bill
> 

-- 
Bill Gunshannon          |  de-moc-ra-cy (di mok' ra see) n.  Three wolves
billg999 at cs.scranton.edu |  and a sheep voting on what's for dinner.
University of Scranton   |
Scranton, Pennsylvania   |         #include <std.disclaimer.h>