Path: utzoo!utgpu!water!watmath!clyde!att!osu-cis!tut.cis.ohio-state.edu!
mailrus!nrl-cmf!cmcl2!phri!manhat!mancol!samperi
From: samp...@mancol.UUCP (Dominick Samperi)
Newsgroups: misc.legal,comp.misc,comp.sys.att,comp.sys.ibm.pc
Subject: AT&T vs. CSS (PC/Tools)
Keywords: AT&T, lawsuit, CSS, PC/Tools
Message-ID: <403@mancol.UUCP>
Date: 29 May 88 23:11:08 GMT
Organization: Manhattan College, NYC, USA
Lines: 19
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!samp...@NYU.EDU ihnp4!rutgers!nyu.edu!manhat!samperi
philabs!cmcl2!manhat!samperi ihnp4!rutgers!hombre!samperi
(^ that's an ell) uunet!swlabs!mancol!samperi
Path: utzoo!utgpu!water!watmath!clyde!att!osu-cis!tut.cis.ohio-state.edu!
bloom-beacon!think!ames!killer!dcs!wnp
From: w...@dcs.UUCP (Wolf N. Paul)
Newsgroups: misc.legal,comp.misc,comp.sys.att,comp.sys.ibm.pc
Subject: Re: AT&T vs. CSS (PC/Tools)
Keywords: AT&T, lawsuit, CSS, PC/Tools
Message-ID: <102@dcs.UUCP>
Date: 30 May 88 10:52:17 GMT
References: <403@mancol.UUCP>
Reply-To: w...@dcs.UUCP (Wolf N. Paul)
Organization: DCS, Dallas, Texas
Lines: 41
In article <4...@mancol.UUCP> samp...@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: w...@DESEES.DAS.NET or w...@dcs.UUCP TLX: 910-280-0585 EES PLANO UD
Path: utzoo!utgpu!water!watmath!looking!brad
From: b...@looking.UUCP (Brad Templeton)
Newsgroups: misc.legal,comp.misc,comp.sys.att,comp.sys.ibm.pc
Subject: Re: AT&T vs. CSS (PC/Tools)
Keywords: AT&T, lawsuit, CSS, PC/Tools
Message-ID: <1697@looking.UUCP>
Date: 31 May 88 02:34:33 GMT
References: <403@mancol.UUCP> <102@dcs.UUCP>
Reply-To: b...@looking.UUCP (Brad Templeton)
Organization: Looking Glass Software Ltd.
Lines: 30
In article <1...@dcs.UUCP> w...@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
Path: utzoo!dciem!nrcaer!scs!spl1!laidbak!att!alberta!ubc-cs!uw-beaver!
mit-eddie!rutgers!mtunx!whuts!homxb!genesis!hotlr!chuck
From: ch...@hotlr.ATT ( C J Luciano hotld)
Newsgroups: misc.legal,comp.misc,comp.sys.att,comp.sys.ibm.pc
Subject: Re: AT&T vs. CSS (PC/Tools)
Message-ID: <395@hotlr.ATT>
Date: 2 Jun 88 19:51:40 GMT
Article-I.D.: hotlr.395
References: <403@mancol.UUCP> <102@dcs.UUCP>
Reply-To: ch...@hotlr.UUCP (54316 - C J Luciano hotld)
Organization: AT&T-BL Holmdel NJ - Lab 5431
Lines: 11
> 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.
Path: utzoo!attcan!uunet!lll-winken!lll-tis!helios.ee.lbl.gov!pasteur!ucbvax!
decwrl!ames!killer!dcs!wnp
From: w...@dcs.UUCP (Wolf N. Paul)
Newsgroups: misc.legal,comp.misc,comp.sys.att,comp.sys.ibm.pc
Subject: Re: AT&T vs. CSS (PC/Tools)
Keywords: AT&T, lawsuit, CSS, PC/Tools
Message-ID: <109@dcs.UUCP>
Date: 6 Jun 88 12:03:54 GMT
References: <403@mancol.UUCP> <102@dcs.UUCP> <395@hotlr.ATT>
Reply-To: w...@dcs.UUCP (Wolf N. Paul)
Organization: DCS, Dallas, Texas
Lines: 20
In article <3...@hotlr.ATT> ch...@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: w...@dcs.UUCP TLX: 910-280-0585 EES PLANO UD
Path: utzoo!attcan!uunet!husc6!spdcc!gnosys!gnews
From: gn...@gnosys.UUCP (Gary S. Trujillo )
Newsgroups: misc.legal,comp.misc,comp.sys.att,comp.sys.ibm.pc
Subject: Re: AT&T vs. CSS (PC/Tools)
Summary: vi *is* covered by AT&T license
Keywords: AT&T, lawsuit, CSS, PC/Tools
Message-ID: <36@gnosys.UUCP>
Date: 14 Jun 88 05:09:30 GMT
References: <403@mancol.UUCP> <102@dcs.UUCP> <395@hotlr.ATT> <109@dcs.UUCP>
Reply-To: g...@gnosys.UUCP (Gary S. Trujillo)
Organization: gst's 3B1 - Somerville, Massachusetts
Lines: 22
In article <1...@dcs.UUCP> w...@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
Path: utzoo!attcan!uunet!husc6!bloom-beacon!tut.cis.ohio-state.edu!rutgers!
att!cbnews!mark
From: m...@cbnews.ATT.COM (Mark Horton)
Newsgroups: misc.legal,comp.misc,comp.sys.att,comp.sys.ibm.pc
Subject: Re: AT&T vs. CSS (PC/Tools)
Keywords: AT&T, lawsuit, CSS, PC/Tools
Message-ID: <625@cbnews.ATT.COM>
Date: 5 Jul 88 16:01:02 GMT
Organization: AT&T Bell Laboratories, Columbus
Lines: 19
In article <3...@gnosys.UUCP> g...@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