Date: Sat, 25 Jul, 1991 14:03:54 PDT From: Jim Thomas Subject: File 4--Bellcore Explains its Position against 2600 Bellcore's letter to 2600 Magazine (posted above) threatens legal action because 2600 published alleged restricted (and therefore "proprietary") information contained in a leaked Bellcore document(s). According to Bellcore's General Attorney for Intellectual Property Matters, Leonard C. Suchyta, the article reproduced protected information of value and of a sensitive technological nature. The intent of the letter, according to Suchyta, was to put 2600 "on notice" of Bellcore's position in protecting intellectual property and the willingness to pursue future monetary and injunctive relief if necessary. According to Suchyta, the article "U.S. Phone Companies Face Built-In Privacy Hole" from the Winter, 1991-92 issue of 2600, included paraphrased and direct quotes from proprietary Bell documents. At issue, he said, were copyright and intellectual property rights rather than potential security breaches. Citing two U.S. Supreme Court Cases, Florida Star v. B.J.F. (1989) and Cohen v. Cowles Media (1991), Suchyta argued that 2600 had gone beyond acceptable journalistic practices in quoting Bell internal memos and documents in its story. The issue, he said, wasn't whether one line or an entire document were reproduced, because any reproduction was copyright infringement. The Constitutional theory of "fair use," which follows a sliding scale of copyright material allowed to be reproduced in other media without permission, was inapplicable in this case, according to Suchyta, because all material in the documents was restricted. He indicated that the restrictive and proprietary nature of the original documents was clearly marked, but he did not know the form in which 2600 received them or whether what 2600 received indicated the proprietary markings. When asked to compare 2600's action with commonly accepted investigatory journalism in which government or private restricted documents are the basis of a story, Suchyta explained that, in his view, the 2600 action was not comparable to release of, for example, the Pentagon Papers. With government documents, he said, the public arguably may have an overriding interest that permits disclosure. In the 2600 case, the information was private proprietary information. When asked about the practice of media stories based on leaked documents from whistle-blowers or other sources, he indicated that without the specifics of a given case he couldn't draw a judgment. Spokespersons at Bellcore said that although the letter was a warning, they were not in a position to say at this time whether litigation against 2600 was precluded. Downloaded From P-80 International Information Systems 304-744-2253