About the comp.unix.internals fluster

About the comp.unix.internals fluster

Post by Craig Jackson drile » Thu, 13 Sep 1990 00:19:45



If anyone is really concerned about the legalities of these things,
then there should be no 'comp.unix.xxx' groups.  They should all
be 'comp.unix.operating.system.xxx'.

Use of Unix as a noun is an encroachment on AT&T's trademark, to which
they are legally obliged to object in order to retain their trademark.
(Trademarks can only be adjectives.  If a trademark becomes a noun, it
becomes the common name for something, rather than a word which distinguishes
a particular variety from the general case.)

Look around in the manuals--at least as far as the lawyers have read, it
will always be written as the Unix operating system.
--
Craig Jackson

{bbn,axiom,redsox,atexnet,ka3ovk}!drilex!{dricej,dricejb}

 
 
 

About the comp.unix.internals fluster

Post by wolf pa » Thu, 13 Sep 1990 16:23:41



Quote:>Use of Unix as a noun is an encroachment on AT&T's trademark, to which
>they are legally obliged to object in order to retain their trademark.
>(Trademarks can only be adjectives.  If a trademark becomes a noun, it
>becomes the common name for something, rather than a word which distinguishes
>a particular variety from the general case.)

>Look around in the manuals--at least as far as the lawyers have read, it
>will always be written as the Unix operating system.

Of course one can debate whether "unix" in a newsgroup name is a noun
or an adjective; but the real issue is that trademark protection does
not refer to private conversation, and as long as USENET is "an anarchy",
it is just a bunch of private individuals discussing subjects they are
interested in, and using any vocabulary they wish in doing so.

I cannot see a judge issuing a restraining order against the term
"jello" used in private conversation (even in a public place) to refer to
any and all gelatine desserts, whether of brand "Jell-O" or not;
likewise I cannot see anyone taking serious legal action against the
use of the term UNIX in any way in the context of USENET.

Mark Williams Co., and Prentice Hall cannot refer to their respective
Operating System products as "UNIX v7", but no-one can stop anyone of us
taking part in private discussion (even in a public forum like the
NET) from referring to Coherent or MINIX as "basically Unix V7 for the PC."
Unlike Copyright Law, which also refers to private copying, Trademark
protection only protects the use of a term as a trademark, not as a word
in private conversation.
--
Wolf N. Paul, IIASA, A - 2361 Laxenburg, Austria, Europe
PHONE: +43-2236-71521-465     FAX: +43-2236-71313      UUCP: uunet!iiasa.at!wnp

       * * * * Kurt Waldheim for President (of Mars, of course!) * * * *

 
 
 

About the comp.unix.internals fluster

Post by Matt Crawfo » Thu, 13 Sep 1990 23:36:50


) Use of Unix as a noun is an encroachment on AT&T's trademark, ...

We who are not in the business of selling a derivative of the unix(tm)
brand operating system can use the word any way we please.  For
instance, in my DNS records, I label any OS that ends with an X as
"unix."  I may get a letter someday from AT&T's lawayers, but I don't
think they have a cause of action.
________________________________________________________

 
 
 

About the comp.unix.internals fluster

Post by t.. » Fri, 14 Sep 1990 02:12:03



Quote:> If anyone is really concerned about the legalities of these things,
> then there should be no 'comp.unix.xxx' groups.  They should all
> be 'comp.unix.operating.system.xxx'.

Of course, it should have always been comp.os.unix.xxx, since usenet is NOT
a unix oriented network, or so I was told while being flamed over creating
VMSnet. :-)
--

(uucp: ...!rutgers!ksuvax1!mccall!tp)     615 McCall Road
(800)255-2762, in KS (913)776-4041        Manhattan, KS 66502, USA
 
 
 

About the comp.unix.internals fluster

Post by Rahul Dhe » Fri, 14 Sep 1990 06:56:15



     Use of Unix as a noun is an encroachment on AT&T's trademark...
     If a trademark becomes a noun...

Too late...My observation is that UNIX has been a noun for about ten
years now.  Its adjective status probably exists only in the minds of
AT&T's lawyers.
--

UUCP:  oliveb!cirrusl!dhesi

 
 
 

About the comp.unix.internals fluster

Post by Chuck Kari » Fri, 14 Sep 1990 07:44:41



Quote:(Craig Jackson drilex1) writes:
>If anyone is really concerned about the legalities of these things,
>then there should be no 'comp.unix.xxx' groups.  They should all
>be 'comp.unix.operating.system.xxx'.

'comp.unix-operating-system.xxx', if you please.  We don't need
a three-level directory hierarchy to satisfy AT&T's lawyers.
Of course, the trademark owners have, in their infinite wisdom,
limited directory names in their versions of the UNIX operating system
to 14 letters, so 'comp.unix.xxx' is more appropriate.
--


        Mindcraft, Inc.         (415) 323-9000          

 
 
 

About the comp.unix.internals fluster

Post by Gary Duz » Fri, 14 Sep 1990 10:04:00



Quote:=>(Craig Jackson drilex1) writes:

=>>If anyone is really concerned about the legalities of these things,
=>>then there should be no 'comp.unix.xxx' groups.  They should all
=>>be 'comp.unix.operating.system.xxx'.
=>
=>'comp.unix-operating-system.xxx', if you please.  We don't need
=>a three-level directory hierarchy to satisfy AT&T's lawyers.
=>Of course, the trademark owners have, in their infinite wisdom,
=>limited directory names in their versions of the UNIX operating system
=>to 14 letters, so 'comp.unix.xxx' is more appropriate.

   comp.unix-os.* would do. However, is there really anything to worry
about? Can AT&T sue USENET? Maybe comp.unix-tm.* would do. :-) Just have
a monthly posting with:

Subject: Unix is a Registered Trademark of AT&T Bell Labs

or whatever, if you really want to.

                                        Gary Duzan
                                        Time  Lord
                                    Third Regeneration

--

   _o_                    --------------------------                      _o_
 [|o o|] If you can square, round, or cube a number, why not sphere it? [|o o|]
  |_O_|         "Don't listen to me; I never do." -- Doctor Who          |_O_|

 
 
 

1. Put the internals back in comp.unix.internals!

Perhaps I'm wrong, but doesn't internals imply a discussion on the internals
of Unix? (Which I take to mean things pretty close to a kernel level...)
This is what I subscribed to this group for, but I see little difference
between this group and comp.unix.*. I think the catagories need to be
subdivided into a sense making order. comp.unix.programming for programming,
internals for internals, etc. I don't see any need to choose wizards over
internals because both seem more like programming to me. I think that posts
on low level things, such as device drivers are appropriate. I think that
the trojan horse stuff should go into comp.unix.security or comp.unix.hackers
or something. I'm more interested in hearing people discuss really low level
concepts. But hey, just my $0.02. Granted, the trojan horse stuff almost
makes my definition of internals, but I'm getting tired of 18 billion
"Trojan Horse" subjects every time I try to read the group.

| Michael Griffith                     | If I had an opinion it certainly   |

| ...!tektronix!psueea!eecs!griffith   | Portland State University anyways. |

2. Cannot Delete Files

3. comp.sys.hp comp.sys.sgi comp.sys.sun comp.unix.ultrix comp.unix.wizards

4. YDL Errors w/ keyboard and zip drive

5. comp.unix.questions comp.unix.misc comp.unix.sys5.r3

6. anti alias->kill kde

7. comp.unix.wizards comp.lang.c comp.sys.sun alt.unix.wizards alt.unix.wizards.free

8. VFS autmounter support v3

9. comp.unix.shell comp.sys.sun.admin comp.unix.questions

10. comp.sys.sun.admin comp.unix.solaris comp.unix.wizards

11. CALL FOR VOTES: REPLACE comp.unix.internals

12. Deja.Com Daily Digest: comp.unix.internals 1/1

13. Status of voting to rename comp.unix.internals