[plug] TSG code identified, it's from Unix v6 published in 1976

[Scott Middleton]

On Wed, 2003-08-20 at 15:52, Bernd Felsche wrote:
<snip>
> > Hating to sound cynical. But do you really think they would show
> > their best code? 
> 
> What is the point of using published code as an example of
> prorietary information?
> 
Where do i start :)
<cynicism>
1. They don't care to tell the truth.
2. They know the Linux community will change it quickly as i already
said.
3. If the linux community does change it, it is one less argument they
have.
4. The average share holder really doesn't give a sh** if its the truth
or not as long as the shares go up.
5. Its good marketing/business practice to continually push some
controversy, as you can see from the share price.
</cynicism>
I could probably think of a few more reasons if you really want me to.
To be honest i am rather surprised you asked that question  :)



> They claimed it was proprietary code that could only have been
> obtained through IBM or other SV licencee.
> 
> > Mind you i would've thought that if they had
> > several really good examples they could've given away one minor
> > example. They know as soon as  hey show one "real" example there
> > will be a new unadulterated kernel version in about 5 minutes.
<snip>
> > I saw on TV last week or so, something about some company that
> > owns 95% of the patents for DNA and they are suiting people
> > retrospectively for the gene research. Is this similar? Has a new
> > way of doing business evolved?
> 
> Irrelevant. Patents are distinct from Copyright.
> They are also distinct from NDAs and contract law(s).

You seem to know what i was talking about. Do you know the companies
name doing the "suiting"? I was interested but missed the majority of
it. I didn't even know you could patent genes, can you copyright them as
well? Please enlighten me!  :) Off-list if you like.


Regards

-- 
Linux Information Technology
Society of Linux Professionals WA
www.LinuxIT.com.au
(08) 9331 8051