samperi@mancol.UUCP (Dominick Samperi) (05/30/88)
The May issue of UNIX Review reports that AT&T won an out-of-court
settlement in its suit aginst Custom Software Systems, Inc. The
suit claimed that PC/Tools and PC/Spell, both marketed by CSS,
"used aspects of UNIX," but CSS did not purchase a license from
AT&T. Does this mean that it is illegal to market versions of
the standard tools (cp, mv, tar, etc.) for DOS or for other
operating systems, or enhanced versions of these tools for UNIX,
without first buying a license from AT&T?
Does AT&T have exclusive rights to use these utility names? Would it
still be illegal to market tools with similar capabilities that are
named differently?
What exactly does "used aspects of UNIX" mean anyway????
--
Dominick Samperi, Manhattan College, NYC
manhat!samperi@NYU.EDU ihnp4!rutgers!nyu.edu!manhat!samperi
philabs!cmcl2!manhat!samperi ihnp4!rutgers!hombre!samperi
(^ that's an ell) uunet!swlabs!mancol!samperiwnp@dcs.UUCP (Wolf N. Paul) (05/30/88)
In article <403@mancol.UUCP> samperi@mancol.UUCP (Dominick Samperi) writes: >The May issue of UNIX Review reports that AT&T won an out-of-court >settlement in its suit aginst Custom Software Systems, Inc. The >suit claimed that PC/Tools and PC/Spell, both marketed by CSS, >"used aspects of UNIX," but CSS did not purchase a license from >AT&T. Does this mean that it is illegal to market versions of >the standard tools (cp, mv, tar, etc.) for DOS or for other >operating systems, or enhanced versions of these tools for UNIX, >without first buying a license from AT&T? I think we can safely assume that "aspects of UNIX" here refers to rather substantial amounts of UNIX source code, or at least code resembling the real thing sufficiently closely to reasonably assume that it was derived from it. The reason I say this is that there have been other, commercially more significant, UNIX-lookalikes which AT&T did not bother. Also, when PC/VI first made its appearance, a friend of mine in the Boston area told me he had heard from a friend who had access to both UNIX and PC/VI source code that the sources resembled each other so closely, down to flaws in the coding style, that he was conviced PC/VI was a rip-off. >Does AT&T have exclusive rights to use these utility names? Would it >still be illegal to market tools with similar capabilities that are >named differently? If AT&T had exclusive rights to these utility names, MS would be in trouble over DOS -- cd, mkdir, rmdir etc. Again, there are many other packages out there using these names for functionally similar programs without being bothered by AT&T that I don't think the name or functional definition is the issue. >What exactly does "used aspects of UNIX" mean anyway???? As I said, I'm sure they obtained access to UNIX source and did straight ports, or disguised ports (i.e. change variable names, etc.), or somthing else of similar nature. -- Wolf N. Paul * 3387 Sam Rayburn Run * Carrollton TX 75007 * (214) 306-9101 UUCP: ihnp4!killer!dcs!wnp ESL: 62832882 INTERNET: wnp@DESEES.DAS.NET or wnp@dcs.UUCP TLX: 910-280-0585 EES PLANO UD
brad@looking.UUCP (Brad Templeton) (05/31/88)
In article <102@dcs.UUCP> wnp@dcs.UUCP (Wolf N. Paul) writes: >If AT&T had exclusive rights to these utility names, MS would be in trouble >over DOS -- cd, mkdir, rmdir etc. Again, there are many other packages >out there using these names for functionally similar programs without being >bothered by AT&T that I don't think the name or functional definition is >the issue. I am sure that if AT&T had wanted to (it's a bit late now) they could have gotten trade marks on the more unusual Unix command names. A trade mark is a unique adjective that identifies a product, and I think things like "cd", "mkdir", and "rm" all apply. If anything, Unix is often under fire for having such unusual, sometimes cryptic command names. This proves they are valid trade marks. Of course, nothing that came from an earlier OS (like Multics) could be claimed as a TM, and they would have trouble with a descriptive English name, but many Unix names are not such. But you can rest easy. Because AT&T has made no attempt to stop Microsoft, Mark Williams, Mortis Kern and several others from using these names, they have given up what rights they might have had, in my non-lawyer opinion. If you want to protect an operating system, function library or language from cloning, the easist way is probably with trade marks. Unix, by the way, is a trade mark of AT&T Bell Labs, for its brand of multi-tasking operating system. -- Brad Templeton, Looking Glass Software Ltd. - Waterloo, Ontario 519/884-7473
toma@tekgvs.UUCP (06/02/88)
In article <1697@looking.UUCP> brad@looking.UUCP (Brad Templeton) writes: >I am sure that if AT&T had wanted to (it's a bit late now) they could >have gotten trade marks on the more unusual Unix command names. [...] >This proves they are valid trade marks. But they would have to protect the trademark by not not using them in a generic sense. That means calling it "the cd brand change directory command". They have to insure the commands do not fall into common use. This means one should not say "cee dee to slash bin" but rather "use the cd brand change directory command to change to the directory slash bin". Or perhaps even ".. the directory slash bin brand binaries directory" if they had the foresight to trademark the directory names as well! Personally, I think some of the names are so bad no one in their right mind should copy them. >Unix, by the way, is a trade mark of AT&T Bell Labs, for its brand of >multi-tasking operating system. This says it all! Tom Almy toma@tekgvs.TEK.COM
chuck@hotlr.ATT ( C J Luciano hotld) (06/03/88)
> The reason I say this is that there have been other, commercially more > significant, UNIX-lookalikes which AT&T did not bother. Also, when PC/VI > first made its appearance, a friend of mine in the Boston area told me > he had heard from a friend who had access to both UNIX and PC/VI source > code that the sources resembled each other so closely, down to flaws in > the coding style, that he was conviced PC/VI was a rip-off. I believe that AT&T would not be the one who should be concerned here since VI is licensed by AT&T from University of California at Berkeley. Therefore it's UCB's problem.
wnp@dcs.UUCP (Wolf N. Paul) (06/06/88)
In article <395@hotlr.ATT> chuck@hotlr.UUCP (54316 - C J Luciano hotld) writes: > > > The reason I say this is that there have been other, commercially more > > significant, UNIX-lookalikes which AT&T did not bother. Also, when PC/VI > > first made its appearance, a friend of mine in the Boston area told me > > he had heard from a friend who had access to both UNIX and PC/VI source > > code that the sources resembled each other so closely, down to flaws in > > the coding style, that he was conviced PC/VI was a rip-off. > >I believe that AT&T would not be the one who should be concerned here since >VI is licensed by AT&T from University of California at Berkeley. Therefore >it's UCB's problem. However, in order to have access to BSD source you need a UNIX source license, which these folks presumably did not have. Also, I would not be surprised to find out that vi/ex contains large chunks of ed source. -- Wolf N. Paul * 3387 Sam Rayburn Run * Carrollton TX 75007 * (214) 306-9101 UUCP: ihnp4!killer!dcs!wnp ESL: 62832882 DOMAIN: wnp@dcs.UUCP TLX: 910-280-0585 EES PLANO UD
gnews@gnosys.UUCP (Gary S. Trujillo ) (06/14/88)
In article <109@dcs.UUCP> wnp@dcs.UUCP (Wolf N. Paul) writes: > ... > However, in order to have access to BSD source you need a UNIX source license, > which these folks presumably did not have. Also, I would not be surprised > to find out that vi/ex contains large chunks of ed source. Well, the story I heard, and it may have been from Mark Horton, who worked on the thing for two or three years after Bill Joy moved on to other projects at Berkeley, was that ex/vi *is* covered by the AT&T license EVEN THOUGH IT CONTAINS NOT A SINGLE LINE OF CODE FROM ED!! The fact is that they started by hacking on the ed code, and even though they hollowed the thing out and dropped in a whole new entity, throwing away everything they had to begin, this is just the way the lawyers interpreted the letter of the agreement. Sigh. -- Gary S. Trujillo {ihnp4,linus,bbn,m2c}!spdcc!gnosys!gst Somerville, Massachusetts {cirl,ima,stech,wjh12}!gnosys!gst -- Gary S. Trujillo {ihnp4,linus,bbn,m2c}!spdcc!gnosys!gst Somerville, Massachusetts {cirl,ima,stech,wjh12}!gnosys!gst
mark@cbnews.ATT.COM (Mark Horton) (07/05/88)
In article <36@gnosys.UUCP> gst@gnosys.UUCP (Gary S. Trujillo) writes:
< Well, the story I heard, and it may have been from Mark Horton, who worked
< on the thing for two or three years after Bill Joy moved on to other projects
< at Berkeley, was that ex/vi *is* covered by the AT&T license EVEN THOUGH IT
< CONTAINS NOT A SINGLE LINE OF CODE FROM ED!! The fact is that they started
< by hacking on the ed code, and even though they hollowed the thing out and
< dropped in a whole new entity, throwing away everything they had to begin,
< this is just the way the lawyers interpreted the letter of the agreement.
I don't normally read these newsgroups, but this message was brought to
my attention.
The fact is that somewhere around 5% or 10% of the code in vi is really
ed. The buffer management mechanism, the ex command interface, and the
file I/O stuff, for example, are pretty much unchanged from ed. For
this reason, vi and ex are covered by the AT&T UNIX license, and cannot
be considered public domain.
Mark Horton