Technology and Trends
 USENET Archives
  
Relay-Version: version B 2.10 5/3/83; site utzoo.UUCP
Posting-Version: version B 2.10.2 9/18/84; site brl-tgr.ARPA
Path: utzoo!linus!decvax!wivax!cadmus!harvard!seismo!brl-tgr!internet!God 
<root%bostonu.cs...@csnet-relay.arpa>
From: God <root%bostonu.cs...@csnet-relay.arpa>
Newsgroups: net.unix-wizards
Subject: UNIX trademark
Message-ID: <5882@brl-tgr.ARPA>
Date: Sun, 18-Nov-84 16:29:02 EST
Article-I.D.: brl-tgr.5882
Posted: Sun Nov 18 16:29:02 1984
Date-Received: Wed, 21-Nov-84 05:29:50 EST
Sender: n...@brl-tgr.ARPA
Organization: Ballistic Research Lab
Lines: 31


	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

Relay-Version: version B 2.10 5/3/83; site utzoo.UUCP
Posting-Version: version B 2.10.1 (Tek) 9/26/83; site orca.UUCP
Path: utzoo!linus!decvax!tektronix!orca!andrew
From: and...@orca.UUCP (Andrew Klossner)
Newsgroups: net.unix-wizards
Subject: Re: UNIX trademark
Message-ID: <1177@orca.UUCP>
Date: Wed, 21-Nov-84 02:46:51 EST
Article-I.D.: orca.1177
Posted: Wed Nov 21 02:46:51 1984
Date-Received: Thu, 22-Nov-84 07:03:37 EST
References: <5882@brl-tgr.ARPA>
Organization: Tektronix, Wilsonville OR
Lines: 23

[]

	'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]

Relay-Version: version B 2.10 5/3/83; site utzoo.UUCP
Posting-Version: version B 2.10.2 9/17/84; site elsie.UUCP
Path: utzoo!linus!decvax!genrad!mit-eddie!godot!harvard!seismo!umcp-cs!cvl!
elsie!ado
From: a...@elsie.UUCP (Arthur David Olson)
Newsgroups: net.unix-wizards
Subject: Re: UNIX trademark
Message-ID: <4070@elsie.UUCP>
Date: Wed, 21-Nov-84 19:41:48 EST
Article-I.D.: elsie.4070
Posted: Wed Nov 21 19:41:48 1984
Date-Received: Fri, 23-Nov-84 07:48:49 EST
References: <5882@brl-tgr.ARPA>
Organization: NIH-LEC, Bethesda, MD
Lines: 12

> '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

Relay-Version: version B 2.10 5/3/83; site utzoo.UUCP
Posting-Version: version B 2.10.2 9/17/84; site hao.UUCP
Path: utzoo!linus!decvax!ittvax!dcdwest!sdcsvax!sdcrdcf!trwrba!cepu!hao!russ
From: r...@hao.UUCP (Russell K. Rew)
Newsgroups: net.unix-wizards
Subject: Re: UNIX trademark
Message-ID: <1273@hao.UUCP>
Date: Fri, 23-Nov-84 17:11:58 EST
Article-I.D.: hao.1273
Posted: Fri Nov 23 17:11:58 1984
Date-Received: Sun, 25-Nov-84 02:43:07 EST
References: <5882@brl-tgr.ARPA> <5896@brl-tgr.ARPA> <413@zeus.UUCP>
Organization: High Altitude Obs./NCAR, Boulder CO
Lines: 16

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!russ

Relay-Version: version B 2.10 5/3/83; site utzoo.UUCP
Posting-Version: version B 2.10.2 9/18/84 SMI; site sun.uucp
Path: utzoo!linus!decvax!decwrl!sun!gnu
From: g...@sun.uucp (John Gilmore)
Newsgroups: net.unix-wizards
Subject: Re: UNIX trademark
Message-ID: <1806@sun.uucp>
Date: Sat, 24-Nov-84 18:36:18 EST
Article-I.D.: sun.1806
Posted: Sat Nov 24 18:36:18 1984
Date-Received: Sun, 25-Nov-84 04:05:14 EST
References: <5882@brl-tgr.ARPA> <5896@brl-tgr.ARPA> <413@zeus.UUCP> 
<1273@hao.UUCP>
Organization: Sun Microsystems, Inc.
Lines: 14

> 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

Relay-Version: version B 2.10 5/3/83; site utzoo.UUCP
Posting-Version: version B UNSW 1.1 19 Sep 1984; site elecvax.OZ
Path: utzoo!watmath!clyde!burl!ulysses!mhuxj!mhuxn!houxm!ihnp4!zehntel!dual!
amdcad!decwrl!decvax!mulga!munnari!basser!elecvax!stephenf
From: stephenf@elecvax.OZ (Stephen Frede)
Newsgroups: net.unix-wizards
Subject: Re: UNIX trademark
Message-ID: <426@elecvax.OZ>
Date: Mon, 3-Dec-84 15:23:18 EST
Article-I.D.: elecvax.426
Posted: Mon Dec  3 15:23:18 1984
Date-Received: Wed, 5-Dec-84 00:30:05 EST
References: <6012@brl-tgr.ARPA>
Organization: EE and CS, Uni of NSW, Sydney, Australia
Lines: 18

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.

Relay-Version: version B 2.10 5/3/83; site utzoo.UUCP
Posting-Version: version B 2.10.1 (Tek) 9/26/83; site orca.UUCP
Path: utzoo!watmath!clyde!bonnie!akgua!sdcsvax!sdcrdcf!hplabs!tektronix!orca!andrew
From: andrew@orca.UUCP (Andrew Klossner)
Newsgroups: net.unix-wizards
Subject: Re: UNIX trademark registration
Message-ID: <1213@orca.UUCP>
Date: Wed, 5-Dec-84 16:51:34 EST
Article-I.D.: orca.1213
Posted: Wed Dec  5 16:51:34 1984
Date-Received: Sat, 8-Dec-84 06:33:45 EST
References: <6012@brl-tgr.ARPA> <426@elecvax.OZ>
Organization: Tektronix, Wilsonville OR
Lines: 40

[]
	"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."

In the U.S., you get trademark protection by simply using the trademark
on a product; you don't have to register it.  Registered trademarks are
followed by a superscript letter 'R' in a circle, and unregistered
trademarks are followed by superscript letters 'TM', not in a circle.
To register a trademark, you pay a fee and file it with an bureau in
Washington D.C.; this affords you a more solid claim if you ever have
to go to court over a trademark violation.  This is usually only done
by companies with enough legal resources to file such a suit, but that
certainly would include AT&T.

I'm just guessing now, but I speculate that the trademark might
originally have gone unregistered because AT&T, a legal monopoly, was
forbidden by law to offer non-telecommunications products in the
market.  And perhaps there's some legal problem with registering a
widely-used unregistered trademark.

	"Surely a name must be registered before it can be subject to
	international copyright agreements (I live in Australia)."

In the U.S., trademark protection is completely independent from
copyright protection.  And, in fact, the AT&T Unix(tm) brand operating
system is not protected by copyright in the U.S.; trade secret
protection is used instead.

  -- Andrew Klossner   (decvax!tektronix!orca!andrew)       [UUCP]
                       (orca!andrew.tektronix@csnet-relay)  [ARPA]

Relay-Version: version B 2.10 5/3/83; site utzoo.UUCP
Posting-Version: version B 2.10.2 9/17/84 chuqui version 1.7 9/23/84; site nsc.UUCP
Path: utzoo!watmath!clyde!burl!ulysses!mhuxj!mhuxn!houxm!ihnp4!nsc!chongo
From: chongo@nsc.UUCP (Landon C. Noll)
Newsgroups: net.unix-wizards
Subject: Re: UNIX trademark registration
Message-ID: <1995@nsc.UUCP>
Date: Fri, 7-Dec-84 20:10:20 EST
Article-I.D.: nsc.1995
Posted: Fri Dec  7 20:10:20 1984
Date-Received: Sat, 8-Dec-84 06:49:31 EST
References: <6012@brl-tgr.ARPA> <426@elecvax.OZ> <1213@orca.UUCP>
Reply-To: chongo@nsc.UUCP (Landon C. Noll)
Organization: National Semiconductor, Sunnyvale
Lines: 34
Summary: 

In article <1213@orca.UUCP> andrew@orca.UUCP (Andrew Klossner) writes:
 >In the U.S., trademark protection is completely independent from
 >copyright protection.  And, in fact, the AT&T Un*x (ed: name modified)
 >system is not protected by copyright in the U.S.; trade secret
 >protection is used instead.

Perhaps someone could explain some things I don't understand:

I do not fully understand how AT&T is able to hold nearly all UN*X systems
as a trade secret.  Is there some kind of a limit on how wide spread
their 'trade secret' can be extended?  Is there some method which
a trade secret becomes so widely known that it is no longer secret?
(much like a trademark can become public domain via too much generic use)

How is AT&T able to claim trade secret over something like 4.2BSD?
	Save your flames about it being based on early Bell Labs systems, and
	save your flames about how any AT&T people who may have helped out,
	and save your flames about the legal papers under which BSD was started.
If you diff 4.2BSD source with V.2 source, you will find that
a great deal of the code is not the same.  Also BSD got major
funding via DARPA, who is in turn funded by US tax payers.
Is there some point where the long arm of trade secret breaks?
Does who did the work and paid for it impact the status of another
person's trade secret claim?  If you start out with a trade secret
code and hack it up one side and down the other while the original
code goes off in another direction, can you claim your own trade secret?

Disclaimer:  The above are my own questions and comments and do not
	     reflect a stand of the company I work for.

chongo <UN*X is a secret kept by tens of thousands of people, at least> /\??/\
-- 
    "Don't blame me, I voted for Mondale!"
				John Alton 85'

Relay-Version: version B 2.10 5/3/83; site utzoo.UUCP
Posting-Version: version B 2.10 5/3/83; site utzoo.UUCP
Path: utzoo!henry
From: henry@utzoo.UUCP (Henry Spencer)
Newsgroups: net.unix-wizards
Subject: Re: UNIX trademark registration
Message-ID: <4752@utzoo.UUCP>
Date: Sat, 8-Dec-84 20:30:43 EST
Article-I.D.: utzoo.4752
Posted: Sat Dec  8 20:30:43 1984
Date-Received: Sat, 8-Dec-84 20:30:43 EST
References: <6012@brl-tgr.ARPA> <426@elecvax.OZ> <1213@orca.UUCP>, 
<1995@nsc.UUCP>
Organization: U of Toronto Zoology
Lines: 67

> I do not fully understand how AT&T is able to hold nearly all UN*X systems
> as a trade secret.  Is there some kind of a limit on how wide spread
> their 'trade secret' can be extended?  Is there some method which
> a trade secret becomes so widely known that it is no longer secret?
> (much like a trademark can become public domain via too much generic use)

A trade secret becomes unsecret only if the secrecy is broken.  That is,
if the secret becomes widely known to people who have *not* formally agreed
to keep it quiet.  This happens if AT&T gets sloppy about protecting it
(in which case they aren't treating it as a secret, and their protection
vanishes), or if somebody who has formally committed himself to keeping
it quiet (i.e., by signing a Unix licence) spills the beans.  In the latter
case, the man who spills a secret he has agreed to keep secret is going to
get sued for his shirt.  So is the man he spills it to, if said recipient
should have known it was secret.  If AT&T catches it quickly -- and they
are indeed on the alert for such breaches of secrecy -- they may well be
able to contain the leak.  If they can't, the secret isn't a secret any more.

However, so long as the secret is protected properly, by things like
non-disclosure agreements, there is no limit on how widely it can be used
while still remaining legally a trade secret.

> How is AT&T able to claim trade secret over something like 4.2BSD?

Easy.  It's derived from Bell code.  And Berkeley, like all of us, has
signed a non-disclosure agreement that requires keeping the Bell code
secret.  So long as there is one byte of Bell code in x.yBSD, it is still
covered, and if Berkeley wants to distribute it, they have to be careful
to do so only to people who are authorized to see the Bell parts.

> If you diff 4.2BSD source with V.2 source, you will find that
> a great deal of the code is not the same.  Also BSD got major
> funding via DARPA, who is in turn funded by US tax payers.
> Is there some point where the long arm of trade secret breaks?
> Does who did the work and paid for it impact the status of another
> person's trade secret claim?  If you start out with a trade secret
> code and hack it up one side and down the other while the original
> code goes off in another direction, can you claim your own trade secret?

It doesn't matter that some of it is different; what matters is that some
of it is still the same.  Another thing that matters is that the Berkeley
work is based on knowledge obtained by studying the secret material,
although *this* is a very slippery area.

Who else contributed to the development of x.yBSD is irrelevant; DARPA
has no power to declare AT&T's trade-secret protection invalid.  They
could impose *additional* restrictions if they wanted to and could clear
it with their superior authorities, but they can't arbitrarily disregard
software agreements they signed to get Unix.

Similarly, you can claim your own trade secret protection for mods you
make to x.yBSD or System N, but this does not eliminate the trade-secret
protection AT&T has made you agree to as a condition of giving you the
stuff.  If you rewrote the stuff from scratch, in a distinctly different
way (so you weren't just reconstructing the Bell stuff from memory),
*then* AT&T has no claim on you.  This is what the Mark Williams folks
did.  But they were careful:  the innards of their system are not at all
similar to the Unix kernel, and they did not have access to Unix source
while they were developing it.  (Having access to the source doesn't
prove that you looked at it, but it makes it a whole lot harder to prove
that you *didn't* if AT&T sues you for copying their secret.)

[Warning:  I am not a lawyer.  For heaven's sake, consult a specialist
before doing anything rash!  I disclaim all responsibility...]
-- 
				Henry Spencer @ U of Toronto Zoology
				{allegra,ihnp4,linus,decvax}!utzoo!henry

Relay-Version: version B 2.10 5/3/83; site utzoo.UUCP
Posting-Version: version B 2.10.2 9/18/84; site brl-tgr.ARPA
Path: utzoo!watmath!clyde!cbosgd!ihnp4!zehntel!hplabs!hao!seismo!
brl-tgr!tgr!...@BRL-TGR.ARPA
From: r...@BRL-TGR.ARPA
Newsgroups: net.unix-wizards
Subject: Re:  UNIX trademark registration
Message-ID: <6571@brl-tgr.ARPA>
Date: Sun, 9-Dec-84 19:00:37 EST
Article-I.D.: brl-tgr.6571
Posted: Sun Dec  9 19:00:37 1984
Date-Received: Tue, 11-Dec-84 04:53:52 EST
Sender: n...@brl-tgr.ARPA
Organization: Ballistic Research Lab
Lines: 10

Yes, and I know of only to Non-AT&T based UNIX-likes around.  One is
Idris from Whitesmiths which had everything except ptrace, but I don't
think the demand is that high (it was done back when Binary licenses and
OEM sublicenses did not exist) anymore.  The other is GNU by Robert
Stallman (programmer to the people) which he is attempting to do so that
computer users of the world can be free of AT&T's capitalistic tyranny.

-Ron

The opinions expressed here are not necessarily those of Denelcor.

Relay-Version: version B 2.10 5/3/83; site utzoo.UUCP
Posting-Version: version B 2.10 5/3/83; site utzoo.UUCP
Path: utzoo!henry
From: he...@utzoo.UUCP (Henry Spencer)
Newsgroups: net.unix-wizards
Subject: Re:  UNIX trademark registration
Message-ID: <4766@utzoo.UUCP>
Date: Tue, 11-Dec-84 14:48:38 EST
Article-I.D.: utzoo.4766
Posted: Tue Dec 11 14:48:38 1984
Date-Received: Tue, 11-Dec-84 14:48:38 EST
References: <6571@brl-tgr.ARPA>
Organization: U of Toronto Zoology
Lines: 10

> ...  The other ["Non-AT&T based UNIX-like"] is GNU by Robert
> Stallman (programmer to the people) which he is attempting to do so that
> computer users of the world can be free of AT&T's capitalistic tyranny.

Actually, the thing that most struck me about GNU was that Stallman had
such a long list of "improvements" he wanted to make that the result was
most unlikely to resemble Unix very much.  Kiss portability goodbye...
-- 
				Henry Spencer @ U of Toronto Zoology
				{allegra,ihnp4,linus,decvax}!utzoo!henry

Relay-Version: version B 2.10 5/3/83; site utzoo.UUCP
Posting-Version: version B 2.10.2 9/18/84; site brl-tgr.ARPA
Path: utzoo!watmath!clyde!bonnie!akgua!sdcsvax!dcdwest!ittvax!decvax!
ge...@csnet-relay.arpa
From: BostonU SysMgr <root%bostonu.csnet@csnet-relay.arpa>
Newsgroups: net.unix-wizards
Subject: Unhappy Customers
Message-ID: <6835@brl-tgr.ARPA>
Date: Sat, 29-Dec-84 11:22:24 EST
Article-I.D.: brl-tgr.6835
Posted: Sat Dec 29 11:22:24 1984
Date-Received: Mon, 31-Dec-84 02:00:00 EST
Sender: ne...@brl-tgr.ARPA
Organization: Ballistic Research Lab
Lines: 63


	It never ceases to amaze me when someone (predictably)
	responds to a pricing/quality/service complaint
	"Hey, they're only trying to make buck" which is
	usually meant to justify most any outrageous practice
	and is usually an indication that this clever person
	has great insight and empathy into *business*.

	Somehow, I think this outright cynicism started around
	the watergate thing (ok, I date myself) the moral
	of which was "Hey, they're only trying to make a buck/win"
	strongly reinforced by the rapid decline into recent
	recessions/scandals/cynicism/apathy/despair-for-moral-values.

	Ok, my answer:

	Hey, I AM THE *#$%@!! CUSTOMER!!!
	And if YOU want my business ya better keep me
	happy or I'll find another game even if it's
	painful. I got bottom lines too and I can
	live w/o any vendor a heck of a lot easier then
	they can live without me, the customer.

	I started using UNIX cause a) It worked b) it was
	reasonably priced for a source license
	c) it looked like (in 1976) it was gonna be
	an area of real development by a community that saw
	the problems a lot like I did. If some of those things
	stop being so, I stop being a customer as soon
	as a reasonable alternative appears...poof, gone.
	And I have enough faith in the good sense of customers
	that I won't be the only one gone. And something
	will appear to fill the void (nature hates a vacuum,
	so does american capitalism.)

	Now, I don't mind paying a reasonable price for something,
	but what that price is depends on its value to ME NOT
	THE PROBLEMS OF THE PEOPLE WHO BUILT IT. Their problem
	is to convince me, the customer, it is worth to me
	what it costs TO ME, not them.

	Personally, I think the free pricing of UNIX
	to universities was wonderfully generous.
	What AT&T got back was an incredibly highly developed system.
	Probably, now as it matures it would not be unreasonable
	to adjust pricing but they better not think the world
	will magically stand still at SYSV or 4.2bsd, development
	continues to be critical.

	Notice, AT&T gave it away for free and made a killing
	on it...chew on that next time you decide to give in
	cause "Hey, they're only trying to make a buck."

	My suggestion to AT&T is that they charge some reasonable
	price for their source distributions that can be spread
	out over time (optionally.) Then, they buy back every
	bug fix and augmentation. At standard consulting rates,
	of course.

	I realize this is a bit frivilous but in fact I am
	half serious.

		-Barry Shein, Boston University