God <root%bostonu.csnet@csnet-relay.arpa> (11/19/84)
AT&T sent me a copy of what appeared to be the start of a user's magazine called '$ echo' dated July 1984. (does anyone know any more about this mag? definitely published by AT&T) At any rate, there is an entire legalish article devoted to (title:) "Use of the Trademark UNIX" A few choice comments that might settle the issue: 'UNIX is an unregistered trademark of AT&T Bell Laboratories used to identify its particular brand of software.' 'A trademark identifies the source of a product.' 'The trademark UNIX must always appear in a form that is typographically distinct' 'The trademark UNIX must be clearly and legibly identified as a trademark of AT&T at least once in any article, advertisement or document...' (because it is UNREGISTERED don't use (R) ) (essentially no one but AT&T is licensed to use the UNIX trademark) 'The trademark UNIX may not be used as a noun, but must always be used as an adjective modifying a common noun as in "UNIX operating system"' [good example] 'A way to check whether a use of the trademark is correct is to mentally insert the word "Brand" between the trademark and the common name. "UNIX brand operating system" sounds reasonable but "UNIX Brand user" does not' [a verbatim quote, I swear.] A few other points. -Barry Shein, Boston University
gwyn@brl-tgr.ARPA (Doug Gwyn <gwyn>) (11/19/84)
> 'The trademark UNIX may not be used as a noun, but must always > be used as an adjective modifying a common noun as in "UNIX > operating system"' Does anyone know why the lawyers decided this? "Coke beverage is the real thing" "It's the Pepsi beverage generation" Yuck!
chuqui@nsc.UUCP (Cheshire Chuqui) (11/20/84)
In article <5896@brl-tgr.ARPA> gwyn@brl-tgr.ARPA (Doug Gwyn <gwyn>) writes: >> 'The trademark UNIX may not be used as a noun, but must always >> be used as an adjective modifying a common noun as in "UNIX >> operating system"' > >Does anyone know why the lawyers decided this? The way the trademark laws are written, you can't trademark an object, you have to trademark a qualified. So, Unix as a noun is not something you can trademark, but the 'Unix Operating System' is, because Unix is what makes that operating system (a generic term) unique. Doesn't really make sense, but that is the way it is. * Unix is a trademark of AT&T, or one of their subsidiaries, last I heard. * Plaid Warlock is a trademark of Chuqui, or one of their subsidiaries. -- From the Department of Bistromatics: Chuq Von Rospach {cbosgd,decwrl,fortune,hplabs,ihnp4,seismo}!nsc!chuqui nsc!chuqui@decwrl.ARPA This plane is equipped with 4 emergency exits, at the front and back of the plane and two above the wings. Please note that the plane will be travelling at an average altitude of 31,000 feet, so any use of these exits in an emergency situation will most likely be futile.
bobr@zeus.UUCP (Robert Reed) (11/21/84)
It seems very obvious that AT&T lawyers are trying very hard to keep UkNow-whatIX from becoming a generic term, one of the possible pathways for losing trademark status. Wasn't "Tollhouse" a trademark for Nestle at one time? Anyway, keeping it a type of thing rather than a thing would certainly reduce its formal use as a generic entity, though it does nothing for its common use. -- Robert Reed, Logic Design Systems Division, tektronix!teklds!bobr
andrew@orca.UUCP (Andrew Klossner) (11/21/84)
[]
'The trademark UNIX must be clearly and legibly identified
as a trademark of AT&T at least once in any article, advertisement
or document...'
AT&T is claiming more than their due. There is nothing in trademark
law to require that a trademark be attributed in "any article." Simply
capitalizing it is more than enough, but they can't even make you do
that.
What they *can* do under the law is prevent you from using "Unix" as a
trademark for some other product that the average person might confuse
with the Unix operating system. And they can also require you to do
anything they want if you sign an agreement to that effect (like a
software license). But the reporter for the Hobokin Herald doesn't
have to waste half a column inch on "Unix is a trademark ..."
Reference: Burge, David A., "Patent and Trademark Tactics and
Practice", John Wiley and Sons, 1980.
-- Andrew Klossner (decvax!tektronix!orca!andrew) [UUCP]
(orca!andrew.tektronix@csnet-relay) [ARPA]Jeff Dean <jeff@aids-unix> (11/22/84)
What they *can* do under the law is prevent you from using "Unix" as a trademark for some other product that the average person might confuse with the Unix operating system. And they can also require you to do anything they want if you sign an agreement to that effect (like a software license). But the reporter for the Hobokin Herald doesn't have to waste half a column inch on "Unix is a trademark ..." I think you've missed something here. For AT&T to maintain the Unix trademark, it is also necessary for them to ensure that the name does not fall into "common usage" (I'm unsure of the correct legal terminology). If a trademark falls into common usage, then the trademark owner can no longer claim a right to the exclusive use of the trademark. (There are a number of example of product names that are no longer valid trademarks; the best known of these is probably "aspirin.") AT&T has done an extremely good job of making sure that people know that UNIX is a trademark. It can certainly be argued that they have been overly cautious, but, from their point of view, that's probably desirable.
ado@elsie.UUCP (Arthur David Olson) (11/22/84)
> 'The trademark UNIX must be clearly and legibly identified > as a trademark of AT&T at least once in any article, advertisement > or document...' I failed to spot the trademarking in Scientific American software issue article that dealt with UNIX. Did I miss something? -- UNIX is an AT&T Bell Laboratories trademark. And just what do we do if somebody trademarks Usenet? -- ..decvax!seismo!elsie!ado (301) 496-5688 DEC, VAX and Elsie are Digital Equipment and Borden trademarks
Lauren@internet.UUCP (11/23/84)
That's correct. Less important than the issue of "does EVERY article that mentions the system properly note the trademark" is "did AT&T make a genuine effort to make sure that people realized the trademarked status of the term?" I don't think anyone can argue that they haven't made the effort. --Lauren--
russ@hao.UUCP (Russell K. Rew) (11/24/84)
After seeing the rules from the AT&T lawyers stating that UNIX should
appear in all caps or be otherwise distinguished typographically, it is
interesting to note the only occurrence of UNIX in all caps in Brian
Kernighan's article, "The Unix System and Software Reusability" in the
latest IEEE Transactions on Software Engineering is in presenting the
sed example:
sed 's/UNIX/Unix/g' filenames... > output
"Unix" is flagrantly used as a noun many places in the same article, which
also includes the phrases "Unix world," "Unix community," and (gasp, sputter)
"Unix users." Is Brian Kernighan trying to wage an inside battle against the
lawyers?
--
Russ Rew
{ucbvax!hplabs | allegra!nbires | decvax!stcvax | harpo!seismo | ihnp4!stcvax}
!hao!scd-sb!russlepreau@utah-cs.UUCP (Jay Lepreau) (11/24/84)
How about moving this discussion to net.<random_junk_group>, please? (Actually, "junk" itself might be appropriate.)
gnu@sun.uucp (John Gilmore) (11/25/84)
> Is Brian Kernighan trying to wage an inside battle against the > lawyers? > Russ Rew No, it's just that lawyers are paid to wage battle against reality. I don't begrudge courts their job -- trying to reconcile the real world with the "imaginative" things lawyers write to justify their salaries. In the trademark case, languages evolve, shedding and gaining words and constructs. All lawyers can do is put fingers in dykes; they can't stop the tide. "Reach out and grep* someone" * grep is not a trademark of AT&T Bell Lawyetories
frodo@wlcrjs.UUCP (James M. Scardelis) (11/25/84)
The legal definition of a trademark is such that it is a mark that describes a particular type or brand of item. The language specified in the article is the same language used by the Patent and Trademark office. Xerox is in constant danger of losing their trademark because people have been referring to such things as "Xeroxing a report" or using the Xerox machine in general, rather than referring to the Xerox brand photocopy machine.
Larry Henry <m16286@mitre> (11/25/84)
ditto......
gwyn@brl-tgr.ARPA (Doug Gwyn <gwyn>) (11/25/84)
> "Unix" is flagrantly used as a noun many places in the same article, which > also includes the phrases "Unix world," "Unix community," and (gasp, sputter) > "Unix users." Is Brian Kernighan trying to wage an inside battle against the > lawyers? Maybe BWK is just showing more common sense than the lawyers.
bsa@ncoast.UUCP (Brandon Allbery) (11/26/84)
Since we all know that Usenet is fairly wrapped up in UNIX* (for the
`computer lawyers' :-), I see no reason to keep putting the trademark
messages in our postings; I thought we were supposed to keep the size
*down*?
How about a new version of rn that automatically prints the copyright
message if it matches (case-independent of course) the word `unix' anywhere
in an article? :-}
--bsa
-------------
* UNIX is a footnote of AT&T Bell Laboratories.
--
Brandon Allbery @ North Coast Xenix | the.world!ucbvax!decvax!cwruecmp!
6504 Chestnut Road, Independence, Ohio | {atvax!}ncoast!{tdi1!}bsa
(216) 524-1416 \ 44131 | E1439@CSUOHIO.BITNET (friend's acct.)
---------------------------------------+---------------------------------------
Forgive; we just had a system crash & lost a month's worth of work and patches.eugene@ames.UUCP (Eugene Miya) (11/27/84)
[leq: Unix: the FORTRAN of operating systems] > The legal definition of a trademark is such that it is a mark that > describes a particular type or brand of item. The language specified in > the article is the same language used by the Patent and Trademark office. > Xerox is in constant danger of losing their trademark because people have > been referring to such things as "Xeroxing a report" or using the Xerox machine > in general, rather than referring to the Xerox brand photocopy machine. I once visited the IBM Science Center in Palo Alto to use the library. When at IBM, you don't Xerox, you IBM. Be thankful that DEC isn't in the copier business. With that, let's move the discussion to /dev/null. --eugene miya NASA Ames
stephenf@elecvax.OZ (Stephen Frede) (12/03/84)
All the semi-official stuff I have seen from AT&T say that "UNIX is an unregistered trademark of AT&T..." . What exactly do they mean by "unregistered"? I have seen several times the statement that it is inappropriate to use the (T) symbol in connection with "UNIX" and yet I have seen AT&T ads which use this symbol. Does the fact that "UNIX" is "unregistered" mean "well guys, we'd really appreciate it if you don't use this word inappropriately, but we havn't registered it so we can't really do a thing about it ..." or does "unregistered" have some obscure meaning to American lawyers. Surely a name must be registered before it can be subject to international copyright agreements (I live in Australia). Now I personally would be happier if "UNIX" was a genuine trademark of AT&T. But is it? ...decvax!mulga!stephenf:elecvax Then there's the rumour that UNIX is a registered trademark ... of a Japanese tape-recorder.
darrelj@sdcrdcf.UUCP (Darrel VanBuer) (12/04/84)
Trademarks have strong common law standing in addition to legislated status.
A registered trademark (which can be marked with R in a circle) is one which
has been "registered" with the US Patent and Trademark office. It can be a
somewhat expensive process, but once approved you have a symbol verified
different from other trademarks, and with strong legal protection.
You can establish a common law trademark (marked with TM) by simply using a
distinctive mark on your product, and defend it by demonstrating your prior
use of the mark in a geographic and/or product area. You generally are not
viewed as infringing a trademark in there is no possibility of confusion
with another use (e.g. you could likely market you own Unix brand ice cream
since it's so remote from phones and computers).
--
Darrel J. Van Buer, PhD
System Development Corp.
2500 Colorado Ave
Santa Monica, CA 90406
(213)820-4111 x5449
...{allegra,burdvax,cbosgd,hplabs,ihnp4,orstcs,sdcsvax,ucla-cs,akgua}
!sdcrdcf!darrelj
VANBUER@USC-ECL.ARPAlmc@denelcor.uucp (12/10/84)
> You can establish a common law trademark (marked with TM) by simply using a > distinctive mark on your product, and defend it by demonstrating your prior > use of the mark in a geographic and/or product area. You generally are not > viewed as infringing a trademark in there is no possibility of confusion > with another use (e.g. you could likely market you own Unix brand ice cream > since it's so remote from phones and computers). There was an amusing instance of this here in Denver a while back, wherein the Denver Broncos were marketing Orange Crush t-shirts and such. Orange Crush (Coca-Cola?) lost the battle, not being in the novelty business. -- Lyle McElhaney (hao,brl-bmd,nbires,csu-cs,scgvaxd)!denelcor!lmc
john@x.UUCP (John Woods) (12/12/84)
> I believe that UNOS [ ... ] are UNIX lookalikes not derived from AT&T code.
I like to call UNOS a "UNIX think-alike". It was build from the ground up
as a brand-new operating system, designed by someone who liked the basic
UNIX philosophy but who also wanted to correct what he regarded as some flaws.
Recently, selling UNIX has become Marketing's idea of a good time, so UNOS has
started growing the features of UNIX which weren't put in to begin with, and
has had the canonical UNIX bugs put in, too (our Jread() call, for instance,
when interrupted will tell you how many characters were transferred--a topic
brought up in an earlier message).
UNOS was born without UNIX source code, and the kernel extensions for UNIX
compatibility were done without resorting to the source code (frequently, a
5-line C program to exercise a feature is faster than flipping through
source!-). However, when we ported the UNIX tools, we went from AT&T code,
for obvious reasons. (Rewriting UUCP, no matter now needful, is not my idea
of a good time!-)
[ The above statements do not reflect any kind of official opinion of Charles
River Data Systems (home of the Frog), and probably imperfectly represent
only some of the opinions of one cranky (ex-UNIX and now) UNOS developer,
namely ]
--
John Woods, Charles River Data Systems, Framingham MA, (617) 626-1114
...!decvax!frog!john, ...!mit-eddie!jfw, jfw%mit-ccc@MIT-XX.ARPA
If your puppy goes off in the next room,
is it because of the explosive charge? [y][n]