x@mit-prep.ARPA (Dean Elsner) (05/28/86)
Sorry, I don't think you can call it PL/2! IBM was going to call PL/1 "NPL" (New Programming Language?) until National Physical Laboratories told them not to. They then registered names PL/1 ... PL/100 (!). I don't think they reserved PL/0. I don't know what 'registered' means here, but I presume trademarked. This is from memory, and may be wrong. x@prep.ai.mit.edu (Dean Elsner) Disclaimer: I am not me. Much. Often. -- x@prep.ai.mit.edu (Dean Elsner) Disclaimer: I am not me. Much. Often.
dgary@ecsvax.UUCP (D Gary Grady) (05/29/86)
In article <36@mit-prep.ARPA> x@mit-prep.ARPA (Dean Elsner) writes: >Sorry, I don't think you can call it PL/2! >IBM was going to call PL/1 "NPL" (New Programming Language?) until >National Physical Laboratories told them not to. They then registered >names PL/1 ... PL/100 (!). I don't think they reserved PL/0. >I don't know what 'registered' means here, but I presume trademarked. >This is from memory, and may be wrong. >x@prep.ai.mit.edu (Dean Elsner) Disclaimer: I am not me. Much. Often. Sounds like an Urban Legend to me. In the US it is not possible to register a trademark until it has actually been used in trade. Hence stories of tobacco companies registering names like Acapulco Gold against the possibility of legalized marijuana are, sadly, bogus. On the other hand it is possible to register unused trademarks in other countries. Some Australians, for instance, make money by speculating in trademarks. If a new American company shows promise, they register the name Down Under. Then if the US firm wants to use its own trademark there, it finds it must pay a royalty to some sneaky solicitor... Perhaps PL/2 et al are already registered there. I just had a vision of all these people at Australian Usenet sites heading for Canberra to register C++. What have I done... -- D Gary Grady Duke U Comp Center, Durham, NC 27706 (919) 684-3695 USENET: {seismo,decvax,ihnp4,akgua,etc.}!mcnc!ecsvax!dgary
ron@brl-sem.ARPA (Ron Natalie <ron>) (06/01/86)
You don't want to call it PL/2 anyway because it's not PL/1 it is PL/I. You should call it PL/II. -Ron
rb@ccird1.UUCP (Rex Ballard) (06/07/86)
In article <1628@ecsvax.UUCP> dgary@ecsvax.UUCP (D Gary Grady) writes: >In article <36@mit-prep.ARPA> x@mit-prep.ARPA (Dean Elsner) writes: >>Sorry, I don't think you can call it PL/2! >>IBM was going to call PL/1 "NPL" (New Programming Language?) until >>National Physical Laboratories told them not to. They then registered >>names PL/1 ... PL/100 (!). I don't think they reserved PL/0. >>I don't know what 'registered' means here, but I presume trademarked. >>This is from memory, and may be wrong. >>x@prep.ai.mit.edu (Dean Elsner) Disclaimer: I am not me. Much. Often. > >Sounds like an Urban Legend to me. In the US it is not possible to >register a trademark until it has actually been used in trade. Hence >stories of tobacco companies registering names like Acapulco Gold >against the possibility of legalized marijuana are, sadly, bogus. Not quite. You don't actually have to sell a product using that name, just announce your intent to sell a product under that mark. When CCI wanted to trademark their "Power 5/20" series processors, they also announced to a few selected costomers products including Power 5/1-99 6/1-99 and 7/1-99. Needless to say, some of these products were in "very early stages of developement" :-). Since these customers were inter-state and international, we were pretty well covered. Usual Disclaimers: I speak for myself, not the company.
jay@isis.UUCP (Jay Batson) (06/11/86)
In article <452@ccird1.UUCP> rb@ccird1.UUCP (Rex Ballard) writes: >In article <1628@ecsvax.UUCP> dgary@ecsvax.UUCP (D Gary Grady) writes: >>In article <36@mit-prep.ARPA> x@mit-prep.ARPA (Dean Elsner) writes: >>>Sorry, I don't think you can call it PL/2! >>>IBM was going to call PL/1 "NPL"... >>> ... They then registered names PL/1 ... PL/100 (!). >>>I don't think they reserved PL/0. >>>I don't know what 'registered' means here, but I presume trademarked. >> >>Sounds like an Urban Legend to me. In the US it is not possible to >>register a trademark until it has actually been used in trade. More later, but Gary is right. > >Not quite. You don't actually have to sell a product using that >name, just announce your intent to sell a product under that mark. Sorry Rex - Wrong. >Since these customers were inter-state and international, we were >pretty well covered. Rex, you are on the right track with interstate customers, but you'd better either check the Lanham act if you're an attorney, or hire one to check it if you aren't. That act specifies that a "trademark" must be used in connection with a product sold in "commerce" before it can be registered. One sale is enough, but there has to be actual use in commerce. (Of course, "commerce" is any trade that congress regulates, therefore "interstate" is used as the touchstone.) If your sale is intrastate, there are common-law principals which will protect your right to be the exclusive user of a name locally. But the intent of a company is usually to protect the trademark nationally, and Lanham act registration is required to do that. On Gary's statement, you can "pre-register" corporate names, but even that doesn't always stand up. There is an interesting case that I can supply the cite for if anyone desires (don't have it here today) where a corporation was formed and registered using its desired name. However, the corporation did no business under that name. When a major Hotel/convention center complex was announced by another company which planned on using that name, the registered corporation brought suit to enjoin the hotel developers, relying on their hoped for proprietary rights in the name. The court said "too bad". You must actually do some business with a name before it can be said to have any value, and the mere registration of a corporation isn't enough to "protect" a desired name. -------- "OK, so now, after it gets dark Lancelot and I will jump out of the rabbit, and take the castle by supr........ oh." Jay Batson {seismo,hplabs}!hao!isis!jay
wesommer@mit-trillian.MIT.EDU (William Sommerfeld) (06/19/86)
In article <264@brl-sem.ARPA> ron@brl-sem.ARPA (Ron Natalie <ron>) writes: >You don't want to call it PL/2 anyway because it's not PL/1 it is PL/I. On Multics (the distant ancestor of UNIX), it's PL/1; the compiler is called "pl1", programs are foo.pl1, etc. Considering the (historical) circumstances, I think it would be more approprate to call it PL/2. But then, Multics PL/1 is a systems programming language, used to write most of the system, and is somewhat different (in programming environment, at least) from IBM PL/I. Bill Sommerfeld ARPA: wesommer@athena.mit.edu UUCP: mit-eddie!wesommer
guy@sun.UUCP (06/21/86)
> >You don't want to call it PL/2 anyway because it's not PL/1 it is PL/I. > > On Multics (the distant ancestor of UNIX), it's PL/1; the compiler is > called "pl1", programs are foo.pl1, etc. Considering the (historical) So what? GE/Honeywell didn't invent the language, IBM did, so if IBM says it's PL/I it's PL/I. Furthermore, the fact that the command name of the compiler, and the language suffix, is ".pl1" doesn't mean that the language's name is PL/1; what does the Multics *documentation* call it? > But then, Multics PL/1 is a systems programming language, used to > write most of the system, and is somewhat different (in programming > environment, at least) from IBM PL/I. The language Multics is implemented in is quite recognizable as PL/I, and isn't some other language called "PL/1". It was used as a systems programming language, but it isn't a systems programming language in the sense that that's *all* it could be used for. It implemented all the other grot, so you could write a payroll program in Multics PL/I if you were so inclined. -- Guy Harris {ihnp4, decvax, seismo, decwrl, ...}!sun!guy guy@sun.com (or guy@sun.arpa)
jew@usl.UUCP (James E. Wilson) (06/24/86)
In article <4327@sun.uucp> guy@sun.UUCP writes: >> >You don't want to call it PL/2 anyway because it's not PL/1 it is PL/I. >> >> On Multics (the distant ancestor of UNIX), it's PL/1; the compiler is >> called "pl1", programs are foo.pl1, etc. Considering the (historical) > >So what? GE/Honeywell didn't invent the language, IBM did, so if IBM says >it's PL/I it's PL/I. Furthermore, the fact that the command name of the >compiler, and the language suffix, is ".pl1" doesn't mean that the >language's name is PL/1; what does the Multics *documentation* call it? Honeywell Multics documentation does indeed call it PL/I . But it is pronounced "pl1" at both Multics and IBM sites. The "I" is merely a Roman numeral, and thus the hypothetical successor would be PL/II. Jim Wilson US Mail: USL P.O. Box 45147, Lafayette, LA 70504; tel. (318)231-6423 UUCP: {ut-sally, akgua}!usl!jew ARPA: usl!jew@ut-sally