drears@ardc.arpa (P) (04/01/86)
UNIX is indeed a trademark. However if enough people use as a generic
term AT&T will lose it as a trademark. Aspirin is a perfect example.
Suggestion to the world : Whenever using UNIX don't identify it as a
trademark. I don't. If everyone does it AT&T is powerless to do anything
about it.
Dennisjpm@bnl.arpa (John McNamee) (04/01/86)
Could some law type explain the difference between a plain trademark and a "registered" trademark?
bzs%bostonu.csnet@csnet-relay.arpa (Barry Shein) (04/02/86)
What immediately occurs to me is that if I were an ATT lawyer I would squirrel away the note imploring people not to attribute UNIX as a (whatever) of (whomever.) It could prove very useful to open an argument that any appearance of it coming into common use was in fact a conspiracy on the part of the technological community. I would bet even a weak argument of that type would overturn the challenge. Is there a legal definition for an unconscious event? A legal test? (yes Barry, it's called the Law :-) -Barry Shein, Boston University
lapoint@BRL.ARPA (Claude Lapointe) (04/02/86)
I wish to ignite no flames. Please do not respond to this message, we've had too much trademark nonsense already. I admit my own guilt by sending this message. It is, however, my first and my last on the subject. I believe 1LT to be at least partially in error as to the reason aspirin is now in the public domain -- recall that it belonged to Bayer, AG, and that the US government did several nasty things to that company because of its association with a certain then-hostile power. I note that, whether we like it or not, whether we think it is right or not, (whether cows fly or not, for that matter) the character string UNIX is property. Our government and our society, despite their failings (make your own choices here) maintain that property can be owned, and support the rights of owners. How would 1LT like it if people deliberately made a thoroughfare of his front lawn, intending that it eventually fall into the public domain? Finally, I note that we have here an example of a commissioned officer of the United States government recommending, while he is acting in his official capacity (after all, he was using government facilities to which he has access by virtue of his duties), that a group of people act in a manner which, if not actually illegal, is at least unethical.
chuq@sun.uucp (Chuq Von Rospach) (04/02/86)
> UNIX is indeed a trademark. However if enough people use as a generic > term AT&T will lose it as a trademark. Aspirin is a perfect example. > Suggestion to the world : Whenever using UNIX don't identify it as a > trademark. I don't. If everyone does it AT&T is powerless to do anything > about it. Actually, all AT&T has to do is show reasonable attempt to protect its trademark -- this is why Xerox(tm) and Caterpillar(tm) are still trademarks, for example, despite continued misuse of those terms. One way AT&T enforces that is through the requirement of all of their people to properly denote Unix as a trademark. The requirement to mark Unix properly is also in your Unix contract your site signed with AT&T. AT&T actually isn't powerlyrless -- since refusing to use Unix as a trademark goes against your license agreements they could simply decide to take away the Unix license from your machine. Inciting people to break trademark could be handled under civil law, and perhaps even be prosecutable under something or other in criminal law... Have fun! chuq (Unix is a trademark of AT&T Bell Labs) -- :From the lofty realms of Castle Plaid: Chuq Von Rospach chuq%plaid@sun.COM FidoNet: 125/84 CompuServe: 73317,635 {decwrl,decvax,hplabs,ihnp4,pyramid,seismo,ucbvax}!sun!plaid!chuq The first rule of magic is simple. Don't waste your time waving your hands and hoping when a rock or a club will do -- McCloctnik the Lucid
drears@ardc.arpa (Dennis G Rears) (04/04/86)
Hopefully this will be the last message on Unix as a trademark. It was not my
intention to start a conspiracy to deprive AT&T(tm) of their trademark. I
just wanted to point out two things:
1) A trademark can be lost if it slips in common usage (it identifies
a type of product instead of specific brand name
2) From what I've seen, people are not identifiying UNIX(tm) as a
trademark. Just look at the name of this maillist as an example. If the last
unix-wizards digest is printed you will find that UNIX(tm), DEC(tm), and
AT&T(tm) are mentioned and not identified as being trademarked. Also when
mentioning the word UNIX(tm) it should be capitalized and not "Unix". I tend
not to mark trademarks as trademarks because to me it is not worth the
hassle.
Does that mean we should? Legally I guess it does. Are we committing a
tort against AT&T(tm), DEC(tm), IBM(tm),etc? Probably. Will we continue to
non-identify the trademarked words. I think so. The only time I see
trademarks be identified as trademarks are in commercial dealings (advertising,
etc).
Dennis
P.S. I know this issue no longer belongs in unix-wizards but I had to
clarified what I meant in a previous message.