stev@seismo.UUCP (Stev Knowles) (05/20/85)
i have noticed in the local paper (the washington post(*)) business section, large (full page) ads for the pc 6300+, which includes everything a man could want at a new low price until june 1st. fine. it also mentions the XENIX 3.0(*) from att that it will run. getting better. call the 800 number. 'who has gotten this XENIX operating system from att?' ' why sir, every one of the stores listed in the ad stock the XENIX operating system'. great. call one, 'never heard of it sir.' called another,' what ad?' called a third ' we are discussing our obligation concerning the add with our att reps now.' called . . . . . called everyone listed in the metro washington area. nothing. i thought about sending this to net.micro.pc, but hey, isnt this a better place for this?(dont answer that). have any of you *seen* this beast? i dont mean the XENIX that runs on the itty bitty machine's /at, but the one advertised to run on the att 6300 (and compatibles, i assume). there, now isnt that simple? right. if you would send your answers to me, i would try to summarize, but you proballywont, and thats alright (sigh). if you could send me the nameand number of someone in att marketing who would be of help, i would appreciate it, though. thanks. stev stev@seismo(hey, everyone knows where seismo is, dont they?) * XENIX is a trademark, possibly of att, * the washington post, thought, is NOT a trademark of att.
ron@brl-tgr.ARPA (Ron Natalie <ron>) (05/20/85)
> > * XENIX is a trademark, possibly of att, > * the washington post, thought, is NOT a trademark of att. XENIX is a trademark of Microsoft.
stev@seismo.UUCP (Stev Knowles) (05/22/85)
In article <10846@brl-tgr.ARPA>, ron@brl-tgr.ARPA (Ron Natalie <ron>) writes: > > * XENIX is a trademark, possibly of att, > > * the washington post, thought, is NOT a trademark of att. > XENIX is a trademark of Microsoft. yes, i thought it was a trademark of microsoft, but i could not imagine that att would market a unix that was not their own, but i suppose i was wrong, so what else is new(8-). correction: XENIX is a trademark of microsoft* the washington post, though, is Not a trademark of att. nor is microsoft a trademark of att ps. i *think* that this is a licenced clone, from att. are there any UN*X like o/s that are not licenced by att? does att have any rights to the name when it is sublicenced? does this belong in net.legal? i dont read net legal . . . . . stev knowles stev@seismo ( the above opinions can be sublicenced from me, just get in touch.)
stev@seismo.UUCP (Stev Knowles) (05/24/85)
In article <10846@brl-tgr.ARPA>, ron@brl-tgr.ARPA (Ron Natalie <ron>) writes: > > > > * XENIX is a trademark, possibly of att, > > * the washington post, thought, is NOT a trademark of att. > > XENIX is a trademark of Microsoft. ok folks, another mind boggling question. who owns the trademark XENIX? microsoft markets a product they call XENIX, but it is for the ibm pc/at. a company called, i believe, the santa cruise operation markets a product they call XENIX also. it is this second unix that i refered to in the article i posted, although i did not realize it when i posted it. as i understood it, from a discussion with an att engineer a while ago(read ~2 years), att licenced other companies to port and distribute UNIX on their own, with the stipulations that att be paid a royality, and that the final product contain a UN prefix or a IX suffix. well? i have gotten some letters correcting the mistake i made, and thanks for not flaming me, and some letters about the XENIX from sco. so i leave it to you att people, or people with copies of this stuff, if you feel ambitious enough to look it up, who owns these names, if anyone? stev@seismo (you couldn't find me? look harder, i think i'm worth it, even if no one else does. and most dont)
tim@conejo.UUCP (James T. Kehres) (05/26/85)
In article <2408@seismo.UUCP> stev@seismo.UUCP (Stev Knowles) writes: > >ok folks, another mind boggling question. who owns the trademark XENIX? > >microsoft markets a product they call XENIX, but it is for the ibm pc/at. >a company called, i believe, the santa cruise operation markets a product >they call XENIX also. it is this second unix that i refered to in the article >i posted, although i did not realize it when i posted it. > > . > . > . > >stev@seismo (you couldn't find me? look harder, i think i'm worth it, > even if no one else does. and most dont) XENIX is the name for the UNIX ported by Microsoft. This includes the product for the PC/AT as well as many other machines (several 68000 and 286 machines at least). SCO markets and supports XENIX. Microsoft, to the best of my knowledge, does not do any end user sales. Tim Kehres Conejo Office Systems San Jose, California {amd,intelca,nsc,sun,pesnta,twg}!conejo!tim (408) 286-5170 -------------------------------------------------------------------------------
guy@sun.uucp (Guy Harris) (05/28/85)
> ok folks, another mind boggling question. who owns the trademark XENIX? Microsoft. > microsoft markets a product they call XENIX, but it is for the ibm pc/at. > a company called, i believe, the santa cruise operation markets a product > they call XENIX also. it is this second unix that i refered to in the > article i posted... The Santa Cruz Operation is a second source for Microsoft's XENIX. XENIX is Microsoft's name for their UNIX offering. It's a UNIX port to various machines with enhancements added by Microsoft. XENIX is available on machines other than the PC/AT. > as i understood it, from a discussion with an att engineer a while ago(read > ~2 years), att licenced other companies to port and distribute UNIX on their > own, with the stipulations that att be paid a royality, and that the final > product contain a UN prefix or a IX suffix. Correct, except that AT&T doesn't care if your system's name contains a UN prefix or IX suffix; CCI's UNIX port is called PERPOS (don't ask why). There *may* be a stipulation that it can't be called UNIX unless it's unmodified AT&T code, although it can say that it's derived from the UNIX system; Microsoft's ads said "XENIX is a microcomputer adaptation of the UNIX system and is licensed to Microsoft by <whichever branch of AT&T was licensing it at the time>" (as well as, of course, the infamous "UNIX is a Footnote of <whatever Bell Labs was being called at the time>"). Guy Harris
bc@cyb-eng.UUCP (Bill Crews) (05/31/85)
Microsoft has been working on Xenix for so many years now, porting it among various 68000 systems with various MMUs, and then the Altos 8600 Xenix, which, I believe, marked the first 80x86 Unix implementation that was commercially available, I find it very difficult to believe that Xenix is a trademark of anyone else! At NCC'82, I wore a Microsoft/Xenix button that I found. I am all but certain that Santa Cruz owns a sublicense for Xenix from Microsoft. An engineer at the NCC'82 booth told me that they really didn't want to support Xenix on any machine that has no memory PROTECTION, let alone mapping. It was at least a year after that that I first heard of Santa Cruz. Forget it -- it's Microsoft's and probably always was. -- / \ Bill Crews ( bc ) Cyb Systems, Inc \__/ Austin, Texas [ gatech | ihnp4 | nbires | seismo | ucb-vax ] ! ut-sally ! cyb-eng ! bc