Newsgroups: comp.org.eff.talk
Path: utzoo!utgpu!news-server.csri.toronto.edu!rpi!zaphod.mps.ohio-state.edu!malgudi!osc.edu!karl.kleinpaste
From: karl.kleinpaste@osc.edu
Subject: Re: Len Rose sentenced to Prison Term
Message-ID: <1991Jun28.172626.937@oar.net>
Sender: news@oar.net
Nntp-Posting-Host: ashley.osc.edu
Organization: Viento Gigabit Testbed, Ohio Supercomputer Center
References: <1991Jun28.124441.4768@midway.uchicago.edu>
Distribution: usa
Date: Fri, 28 Jun 1991 18:23:32 GMT
Lines: 52

learn@piroska.uchicago.edu writes:
   >I'm personally surprised that they count
   >login.c as such a high fraction of the total value of UNIX source code,
   >but I doubt they sell it separately anyway - and you put a different
   >value on something that's been ripped off than on something you sell.

   Perjury is perjury, regardless.

No one at AT&T was ever under oath up to this point, I'm reasonably
sure.  I don't think you can argue perjury until then.  (Possibly
Maggio was, by signing the affidavit about what he found on the
system.  But Maggio didn't ascribe the value to login.c.)

   ...AT&T pulls government
   strings to upgrade the infraction to a criminal status, with absolutely no
   compulsions against lieing as they did about the value of login.c...

   Not much different from SE Bell, a former part of AT&T, who initially
   valued the E-911 file at $ 77,000  while selling copies for under $ 20.

When I last spoke to one of Len's lawyers, about 4-5 weeks ago and
pre-sentencing, we chatted about the login.c valuation question.  The
line of reasoning behind AT&T's $77K (or whatever the exact figure)
value of login.c has to do with the idea of inseparability.  When you
get login.c via license from AT&T, you can't get _just_ login.c; you
necessarily have to get the whole of the SysVRelX.Y core release.
They don't sell login.c by itself.  Thus, the argument goes, if you
have login.c, you necessarily have the rest of the core release.  The
core release goes for $77K or whatever.

This is completely distinct from SE Bell, which was offering the E-911
doc _by_itself_ for under $20.

As for "upgrading the infraction" goes...there were other charges
along the way which were genuinely criminal.  One can say that (well,
_I_ would say that), to a certain extent, the login.c charge was just
along for the ride.  I've seen at least 3 incantations of the
indictment (the feds [and AT&T?] seem to have this fascination with
updating the indictment for newer and weirder charges with some
frequency, thus leaving the defense confused about exactly what is
being defended against under the indictment-du-jour, and causing
wasted effort on the part of the defense), and while login.c was
always mentioned, by the end (and from what I remember of it now -- I
last saw an actual indictment in February) it was not a major player
in the case.

I haven't talked to Len's counsel since sentencing, so I don't know
exactly how this worked out at that time.

--karl

PS- This is just me writing; not Len, and not his legal counsel.