HDTenEightyP/NetNews huggingface dataset:
From: ignatz@chinet.chi.il.us (Dave Ihnat)
Subject: Re: Socially-Responsible Long Distance (was: AT&T Long Distance Boycott)
Summary: Yep; same problem with Sprint
Keywords: Sprint auto-switch
Organization: Chinet - Public Access UNIX
Distribution: na
Date: Fri, 11 Sep 1992 04:54:25 GMT

In article <PLUMMER.92Sep9223016@nutmeg.cs.swarthmore.edu>
plummer@cs.swarthmore.edu (David Barker-Plummer) writes:
>Sprint switched my residential service from AT&T without my
>permission.  When called on this, they could produce no documentation,
>no reason they might have believed that we wanted to be switched,
>nothing.  They fought the suggestion that they might pay to switch us
>back; to restore our long distance service to the way it was before
>they intervened without our permission.  Further, they billed us
>repeatedly for calls made under their service, before we found out
>that we had been switched.

Oh so familiar.  I pay the TelCo bills; my wife makes most of the long-distance
non-business calls on our home phone.  Thus, the fact that our LD bill had
dropped to zero didn't register as unusual with me.

The fact that Sprint contacted me some 3-4 months after they'd switched me from
AT&T and wanted approx. $300 in back charges *NOW* did.

Seems that they'd pulled the switch, and for whatever reason, I wasn't getting
notified in my Illinois Bell bills about the accumulating long distance charges
to this alternative carrier.  And they weren't sending me bills, either.

We had quite a long conversation about this.  It could have qualified as a good
practice session for an improv workshop, as I went through a lot of emotional
expression in the course of the conversation--mild curiosity, perplexity,
annoyance, irritation, and flat-out anger.  They seemed to take the stance
that no matter that *they'd* initiated the change, and that nobody had sent
me any bills; I owed the money, and owed it damn fast.  Needless to say, Sprint
will never be my carrier of choice, and I'll let anyone who cares know about
this incident.

Oh, how did the face-off come out?  Well, I agreed--after checking--that we
owed for the calls; and after they arranged to switch me back to my then-
preferred carrier (AT&T; since dropped in favor of MCI because of the BSDI/
Berkeley lawsuit stupidity), I'd pay them $150/mo. over a couple of months.
This was because I was annoyed at having a hole appear in my spendable-income
budget.  They demurred; I then offered $100/mo. over three months.  They
objected; I then offered $60/mo. over 5 months.

They finally agreed when we got to $50/mo. over 6 months.

This isn't to say I didn't have very satisfying discussions with them over
the whole thing in the next 6 months, as it seems somebody felt compelled to
rake the issue every month to make sure I hadn't decided I really liked them
and wanted to pay the whole schmeer at once.

I never did.  I didn't.

Don't you just love divestiture?...
--
		Dave Ihnat
		ignatz@homebru.chi.il.us (preferred return address)
		ignatz@chinet.chi.il.us
Newsgroups: gnu.misc.discuss
From: sef@kithrup.COM (Sean Eric Fagan)
Subject: Re: Why the boycott of Macintoshes?
Organization: Kithrup Enterprises, Ltd.
Date: Sat, 05 Sep 1992 20:20:56 GMT

In article <shebs-040992103318@delos.apple.com> shebs@apple.com (Stan Shebs) writes:
>Of course, there are now no "Apple legal maneuvers" to defend against, and
>the only suggested condition for ending the boycott has been for Apple to
>publicly forswear any future lawsuits, which no company of Apple's size is
>going to do.  So to me the continuance of the boycott looks more like a
>combination of spite and convenience than "fighting for survival".

Tell me... are all apple employees as ignorant of what their company is
doing, or do they keep you in the dark just so you can make a fool of
yourself?

Try reading the actual issues involved.  You might be surprised to find out
that Apple is still suing both HP and Microsoft, that Apple is preparing to
appeal the decisions made to cause most of the claims to be dismissed, and
that Apple has not changed its policies at all.

But I guess reality doesn't much matter to an Apple employee, huh?

-- 
Sean Eric Fagan  | "You can't get lost in one room, no matter how
sef@kithrup.COM  |  little effort you make to learn your way around."
-----------------+    -- William E Davidsen (william@crd.GE.COM)
Any opinions expressed are my own, and generally unpopular with others.
From: friedman@gnu.ai.mit.edu (Noah Friedman)
Newsgroups: gnu.misc.discuss
Subject: Re: Since when has programming been free? (was Re: Time to boycott Photo CD
Date: 6 Sep 92 02:44:39 GMT
	<FRIEDMAN.92Sep1184721@nutrimat.gnu.ai.mit.edu>
	<1992Sep2.071820.4483@dmc.com>
Organization: Free Software Foundation, 675 Mass Ave. Cambridge, MA 02139
In-reply-to: munroe@dmc.com's message of 2 Sep 92 11:18:20 GMT

In article <1992Sep2.071820.4483@dmc.com> munroe@dmc.com (Dick Munroe) writes:
>In article <FRIEDMAN.92Sep1184721@nutrimat.gnu.ai.mit.edu>, friedman@gnu.ai.mit.edu (Noah Friedman) writes:
>> In article <1992Aug31.134159.9893@pica.army.mil> SteveWall@aol.com (Steve Wall) writes:
>> 
>>>                                                 If a programmer doesn't like 
>>>the way patents affect his freedom, he's welcome to find a career more 
>>>suitable to his ethical/political standards.  
>> 
>>    Once upon a time, programming was such a career.  Why should we have to
>> throw it away?
>
>I beg your pardon, but programming has NEVER been such a career.  It has ALWAYS
>cost money, until recently LOTS of money, to indulge in a programming career.  I
>started as a professional programmer in the mid 60s.  The typical cost of a
>machine was on the order of $1M. 

   What does the cost of hardware have to do with software patents or
interface copyrights?  This has nothing to do with giving away
software---software patents and interface copyrights affect proprietary
developers as well, especially smaller companies with less money or other
bargaining chips.

   Is your argument that because hardware is now cheaper, we have to
deliberately introduce other obstacles in order to keep programming as a
career expensive and difficult?  Even assuming hardware used to be
extremely expensive (I've only been using computers for the last 12 years,
and the ones I've used haven't been very expensive), it was a one time
cost.  Patent searches and lawsuits can be a persistent nuisance, and are
therefore worse.
Newsgroups: gnu.misc.discuss,comp.org.eff.talk,comp.unix.bsd,comp.os.mach,misc.int-property,alt.suit.att-bsdi
From: dhesi@rahul.net (Rahul Dhesi)
Subject: Re: Are you sure UNIX is a trade mark?
Organization: a2i network
Distribution: na
Date: Thu, 10 Sep 1992 06:26:12 GMT

In <BRUNER.92Sep9085157@sp15.csrd.uiuc.edu> bruner@sp15.csrd.uiuc.edu
(John Bruner) writes:

>..."Berkeley UNIX" contains AT&T licensed code.
                   ^allegedly
--
Rahul Dhesi <dhesi@rahul.net>
also:  dhesi@cirrus.com
Newsgroups: gnu.misc.discuss,comp.org.eff.talk,comp.unix.bsd,comp.os.mach,misc.int-property,alt.suit.att-bsdi
From: terry@thisbe.Eng.Sandy.Novell.COM (Terry Lambert)
Subject: Re: Are you sure UNIX is a trade mark?
Organization: Novell NPD -- Sandy, UT
Distribution: na
Date: Wed, 9 Sep 1992 17:48:16 GMT

In article <BRUNER.92Sep9085157@sp15.csrd.uiuc.edu> bruner@sp15.csrd.uiuc.edu (John Bruner) writes:
>I think lawyers for BSDI, etc. would have a difficult time arguing
>convincingly that a significant number of people who know what "UNIX" is
>are unaware that "Berkeley UNIX" contains AT&T licensed code.

	I deny that "Berkeley UNIX" (the "free" Net/2 release) contains AT&T
code.  I believe that the majority of 'people who know what "UNIX" is' agree
with me.

>(Dr.) John Bruner, Deputy Director			bruner@csrd.uiuc.edu
>Center for Supercomputing Research & Development	(217) 244-4476 (voice)
>University of Illinois at Urbana-Champaign		(217) 244-1351 (FAX)
>465 CSRL, MC-264; 1308 West Main St.; Urbana, IL  61801-2307

You guys have H.A.L. up and running yet?  According to the book, the
deadlines this year... will H.A.L. be AT&T free?  8-).


					Terry Lambert
					terry_lambert@gateway.novell.com
					terry@icarus.weber.edu

---
Disclaimer:  Any opinions in this posting are my own and not those of
my present or previous employers.
Xref: sparky gnu.misc.discuss:2988 comp.org.eff.talk:5775 comp.unix.bsd:5474 comp.os.mach:1237 misc.int-property:950 alt.suit.att-bsdi:283
From: rogerk@Veritas.COM (Roger B.A. Klorese)
Newsgroups: gnu.misc.discuss,comp.org.eff.talk,comp.unix.bsd,comp.os.mach,misc.int-property,alt.suit.att-bsdi
Subject: Re: Are you sure UNIX is a trade mark?
Date: 10 Sep 92 16:40:50 GMT
Distribution: na
Organization: VERITAS Software

In article <BuCn7p.Bo6@rahul.net> dhesi@rahul.net (Rahul Dhesi) writes:
>In <BRUNER.92Sep9085157@sp15.csrd.uiuc.edu> bruner@sp15.csrd.uiuc.edu
>(John Bruner) writes:
>
>>..."Berkeley UNIX" contains AT&T licensed code.
>                   ^allegedly

The original reference was to BSD4.3; it *definitely* contains AT&T licensed 
code.

-- 
ROGER B.A. KLORESE                                             VERITAS Software
4800 Great America Parkway #420   Santa Clara, CA 95054    +1 408-727-1222 x310
rogerk@veritas.com                               {apple,pyramid}!veritas!rogerk
"Life turns on a dime." -- Ruth Ann
Newsgroups: gnu.misc.discuss
From: preece@urbana.mcd.mot.com (Scott E. Preece)
Subject: Re: Are you sure UNIX is a trade mark? ("UNIX" != "AT&T System V")
Organization: Motorola MCG, Urbana Design Center
Distribution: na
Date: Thu, 10 Sep 1992 14:51:07 GMT


In article <farrow.716074432@fido.Colorado.EDU> farrow@ucsu.Colorado.EDU (J. Scott Farrow) writes:

| >In article <KANDALL.92Sep9170758@globalize.nsg.sgi.com> kandall@nsg.sgi.com (Michael Kandall) writes:
| ...
| >The term "UNIX" has not fallen into common use in the sense than it refers
| >to any "UNIX-like" product. 
| ^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^
| 
| The hell it hasn't! AT&T/USL are several years too late. I was using
| UN*X for over a year before I even heard of AT&T System V. At CU
| Boulder, we don't even have any SysV machines that I know of, yet we
| refer to all of our UN*X boxes as "UNIX". It has been at least several
| years since "UNIX" meant AT&T System V, and I bet nobody outside of AT&T
| and USL still mean that when they say "UNIX".  I say "UNIX" does indeed
| refer to any UNIX-like product. In fact, I would say "UNIX" is now
| understood to mean a general class of OS's to most people in the
| computing field.
---
Sorry, but I'll bet virtually all of the machines you are referring to
are running systems which *are* derived from AT&T/USL UNIX code and that
they pay license fees to AT&T/USL for the privilege.  UNIX is *not* just
System V; System V is just the current USL UNIX product.  Things like
BSD UNIX, HP-UX, SunOS, AIX, Au/X, Xenix, etc., are all licensed
versions of UNIX.  Not all of them paid the necessary additional fees to
actually use the trademark "UNIX" on their products, but I don't think
you would get a court to accept that the common use of "UNIX" to
describe such systems diluted the trademark.  There are a few UNIX-like
systems (like Coherent) which are not derived from "real" UNIX code, but
I don't think many people call them UNIX.

--
scott preece
motorola/mcg urbana design center	1101 e. university, urbana, il   61801
uucp:	uunet!uiucuxc!udc!preece,	 arpa:	preece@urbana.mcd.mot.com
phone:	217-384-8589			  fax:	217-384-8550
From: dc@stars.gsfc.nasa.gov (Dave Cottingham)
Newsgroups: gnu.misc.discuss
Subject: Re: GATT
Date: 7 Sep 92 00:36:00 GMT
Reply-To: dc@cobi.gsfc.nasa.gov
Organization: NASA/GSFC-Laboratory for Astronomy and Solar Physics
News-Software: VAX/VMS VNEWS 1.4-b1

In article <17044.9209021056@pyr.swan.ac.uk>, iiitac@PYR.SWAN.AC.UK (Alan Cox) writes...
>I guess we have to hope that GATT takes so long to negotiate that
>the US ceases to be a credible world power (two dollars to the pound
>and its rising 8-)) or has its much overdue revolution.

Much overdue revolution?  We just had one 216 years ago.  When was
your last one?

 - Dave
Xref: sparky gnu.misc.discuss:2982 comp.org.eff.talk:5769 comp.unix.bsd:5456 comp.os.mach:1228
From: fox@cs.nyu.edu (David Fox)
Newsgroups: gnu.misc.discuss,comp.org.eff.talk,comp.unix.bsd,comp.os.mach
Subject: Re: Socially-Responsible Long Distance (was: AT&T Long Distance Boycott)
Date: 10 Sep 92 13:47:58 GMT
	<MJB.92Sep1163324@oak7.doc.ic.ac.uk>
	<1992Sep2.134252.4475@Warren.MENTORG.COM>
	<CKD.92Sep2105324@loiosh.eff.org>
	<JYM.92Sep9123430@remarque.berkeley.edu>
Distribution: na
Organization: Courant Institute of Mathematical Sciences

In article <JYM.92Sep9123430@remarque.berkeley.edu> jym@mica.berkeley.edu (Jym Dyer) writes:

   P.S.:  I've had prior reasons for dumping AT&T.  Basically I
   switched over from them when they withdrew charitable support
   to Planned Parenthood because of fundamentalist criticism over
   the abortion issue.

Does Sprint support Planned Parenthood?
Xref: sparky gnu.misc.discuss:2985 comp.org.eff.talk:5772 comp.unix.bsd:5463 comp.os.mach:1232 misc.int-property:949 alt.suit.att-bsdi:282
From: ag@cogsci.Berkeley.EDU (Keith Gabryelski)
Newsgroups: gnu.misc.discuss,comp.org.eff.talk,comp.unix.bsd,comp.os.mach,misc.int-property,alt.suit.att-bsdi
Subject: Re: Are you sure UNIX is a trade mark?
Date: 10 Sep 1992 16:14:19 GMT
Organization: Institute of Cognitive Studies, U.C. Berkeley
Distribution: inet
NNTP-Posting-Host: cogsci.berkeley.edu

Jeeze, what a newsgroups line.  Follow ups would have been set to me
but this silly news code is confused.

In article <farrow.@fido.Colorado.EDU> farrow@fido.Colorado.EDU writes:
>>In article <KANDALL.92Sep9170758@sgi.com> (Michael Kandall) writes:
>>The term "UNIX" has not fallen into common use in the sense than it refers
>>to any "UNIX-like" product. 
>
>The hell it hasn't! AT&T/USL are several years too late. I was using
>UN*X for over a year before I even heard of AT&T System V. At CU
>Boulder, we don't even have any SysV machines that I know of, yet we
>refer to all of our UN*X boxes as "UNIX". [...]
>
>Any other opinions?

I noticed that in the paragraph above you used `UN*X' instead of
`UNIX' to refer to OSs that were not UNIX but did have some
capabilities of UNIX.

Is this because you are competely aware of the difference?

I would say `USL' is not *too* late.

Pax, Keith

Ps:

When I four years old I used the words `Kleenex' and `Band-Aid' to
refer to generic products of their respected kind.  Neither company
paid much attention to my obviously wrong use of their trademarked
brand names.

Both companies still have trademark rights to the names (albeit
possibly on shakey ground).

I doubt USL needs to pay attention to singular illerates.

By the way: I don't speak for anyone but myself.
Xref: sparky gnu.misc.discuss:2954 comp.org.eff.talk:5734 comp.unix.bsd:5343 comp.os.mach:1204
From: brtmac@maverick.ksu.ksu.edu (Brett McCoy)
Newsgroups: gnu.misc.discuss,comp.org.eff.talk,comp.unix.bsd,comp.os.mach
Subject: Re: Are you sure UNIX is a trade mark?
Date: 8 Sep 1992 19:25:02 -0500
Organization: Kansas State University
Distribution: inet
	<1992Sep4.234429.18294@newsgate.sps.mot.com> <Bu5DBu.IA6@rahul.net>
	<1992Sep8.135040.5243@pegasus.com>
	<BRUNER.92Sep8172455@sp15.csrd.uiuc.edu>
NNTP-Posting-Host: maverick.ksu.ksu.edu
In-reply-to: bruner@sp15.csrd.uiuc.edu's message of 8 Sep 92 17:24:55

In article <BRUNER.92Sep8172455@sp15.csrd.uiuc.edu> bruner@sp15.csrd.uiuc.edu (John Bruner) writes:

>One cannot assert that a trademark has lost its protected status just
>because it is a widely-recognized name.  "Kleenex" is almost certainly
>a more widely-recognized name than "UNIX", but it is still a
>registered trademark of Kimberly-Clark.

You can to do exactly that.  Once a name become used to refer to a
generic product, and not a specific brand, the trademark is lost.
Kleenex, if it hasn't already happened, will cease to become a
trademark when the current term (for lack of a better word) runs
out.  The same is likely to happen to Xerox, and has happened for
many other "brands".  If you'd like I can post an entire list of
trademarks that have lost trademark status due to common usage.

++Brett;

Xref: sparky gnu.misc.discuss:3015 comp.org.eff.talk:5801 comp.unix.bsd:5568 comp.os.mach:1254 misc.int-property:969 alt.suit.att-bsdi:293
From: bzs@ussr.std.com (Barry Shein)
Newsgroups: gnu.misc.discuss,comp.org.eff.talk,comp.unix.bsd,comp.os.mach,misc.int-property,alt.suit.att-bsdi
Subject: Re: Are you sure UNIX is a trade mark?
Date: 11 Sep 92 23:52:33 GMT
	<farrow.716074432@fido.Colorado.EDU> <18ns8rINNd81@agate.berkeley.edu>
	<1992Sep11.084516.16908@infodev.cam.ac.uk>
Distribution: inet
Organization: The World


>I was always under the impression that dilution of a trade mark came from
>other companies being permitted to sell products using the same mark, if the
>manufacturer of `Scotties' were to start calling their product `Kleenex'
>and no action were taken then dilution would have occurred, but to say
>"pass me a Kleenex" is not.  Similarly, many people I know call a vacuum
>cleaner a Hoover; but, to the best of my knowledge Hoover is still a trade
>mark of guess who...

One source of confusion lies in the fact that there is more than one
way to lose your trademark, and I can see from some of these notes
that people are sort of mixing the ideas together.

Not protecting usage of your mark in reference to other, similar
products is certainly the best known way (generic.)

Another is allowing others to use your mark but not controlling the
quality etc of the product it is being applied to. For example, if
Kentucky Fried Chicken sold franchises and did little to enforce what
those franchises sold as "Kentucky Fried Chicken", and the product
actually varied widely. Although all the franchises are associated
with KFC and intend that the mark KFC refers to their chicken product
alone, and have duly licensed the right to use the mark, that is not
enough, there must be identification with a single product of some
predictable character.

Perhaps the distinction is subtle, but it is important.

For example, suppose, just suppose, I were a software company which
had a product called, oh for argument's sake, USLIKS. And I licensed
out the right to call many other similar products USLIKS. And those
other products all modified them over a period of a decade in wildly
varying ways until they really didn't much resemble each other in many
critical ways (oh, they're all chicken, and they're all fried,
however...)

P.S. Realizing that someone who knows little or nothing about these
matters will now decide that it doesn't fit his/her world view of the
algorithmic reduction of trademark law to a single well-defined
sentence here is a cite:

Foster & Shook, Patents, Copyrights & Trademarks, John Wiley & Sons,
1989, p 183-4.

"Once you have a patent or copyright, you do not risk losing your
rights if you make a poor choice of a licensee. In the case of a
trademark, however, you do run that risk...you can lose your rights by
licensing to someone whom you do not require to maintain your standard
of quality...When you lose control of the quality, public deception
occurs, as the mark no longer indicates what people expect from the
product..."

--
        -Barry Shein

Software Tool & Die    | bzs@world.std.com          | uunet!world!bzs
Purveyors to the Trade | Voice: 617-739-0202        | Login: 617-739-WRLD
From: rclayton@urbana.mcd.mot.com (Randy Clayton)
Newsgroups: gnu.misc.discuss
Subject: Editorial in opposition to Software Patents
Date: 5 Sep 92 18:31:50 GMT
Reply-To: rclayton@urbana.mcd.mot.com
Distribution: gnu
Organization: Motorola MCG, Urbana Design Center


There is an interesting editorial in the weekly newspaper "Barron's"
opposing software patents. Barron's is published by Dow Jones & Co., the
same company that produces the Wall Street Journal. The editorial is in
the edition dated September 7, 1992 (it is on sale Saturday, Sept. 5).

Most news stands that carry the Wall Streeet Journal also sell Barron's
(it costs $2.50). Also, many libraries have Barron's - usually they get
it via mail delivered on Monday. 

Unfortunately, the copyright message in Barron's prevents me from
posting the entire article (durn, I already have it typed into a file).

I think that I can post this short excerpt though:


~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
                         The Tools of the Trade

         Software Patents Block the Path of Computing Progress

                          By Thomas G. Donlan

Imagine the plight of a musician in a country where certain chord
progressions were patented, or a poet confronting a patent on metonymy,
or a politician who could not get a license to use hyperbole. Now
imagine computer programmers in a country that awards patents on basic
principles of software engineering. Unfortunately, you don't have to
imagine it; the country is the United States.

~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~

Of course, most of the concepts in the editorial are embraced by the
readers of this group. What I think is important is that Barron's is a
conservative paper. Most of their editorials are about supply side
economics or such things. This editorial clearly comes down on the side
of the LPF (they even mention the LPF). 

Use this the next time someone says you are a commie for opposing
software patents.


Randy
Newsgroups: gnu.misc.discuss,comp.org.eff.talk,comp.unix.bsd,comp.os.mach
From: plummer@cs.swarthmore.edu (David Barker-Plummer)
Subject: Re: Socially-Responsible Long Distance (was: AT&T Long Distance Boycott)
Organization: Swarthmore College, Swarthmore, PA
	<1992Sep2.134252.4475@Warren.MENTORG.COM>
	<CKD.92Sep2105324@loiosh.eff.org>
	<JYM.92Sep9123430@remarque.berkeley.edu>
Distribution: na
Date: Thu, 10 Sep 1992 03:30:16 GMT

In article <JYM.92Sep9123430@remarque.berkeley.edu> jym@mica.berkeley.edu (Jym Dyer) writes:

J> From: jym@mica.berkeley.edu (Jym Dyer)
J> Newsgroups: gnu.misc.discuss,comp.org.eff.talk,comp.unix.bsd,comp.os.mach
J> Date: 9 Sep 92 12:34:30

> There's always Sprint; heck, they've even heard of data
> networking . . .

J> =o= You can get a user interface to Sprint that's especially
J> socially responsible:  Working Assets Long Distance.  They
J> have nice features like:

I have the working assets credit card: and was about to switch to this
long distance service until I discovered that it was Sprint that
benefits.

Sprint switched my residential service from AT&T without my
permission.  When called on this, they could produce no documentation,
no reason they might have believed that we wanted to be switched,
nothing.  They fought the suggestion that they might pay to switch us
back; to restore our long distance service to the way it was before
they intervened without our permission.  Further, they billed us
repeatedly for calls made under their service, before we found out
that we had been switched.

-- Dave
Newsgroups: gnu.misc.discuss,comp.org.eff.talk,comp.unix.bsd,comp.os.mach,misc.int-property,alt.suit.att-bsdi
From: bruner@sp15.csrd.uiuc.edu (John Bruner)
Subject: Re: Are you sure UNIX is a trade mark?
Organization: CSRD, University of Illinois
	<1992Sep4.234429.18294@newsgate.sps.mot.com> <Bu5DBu.IA6@rahul.net>
	<1992Sep8.135040.5243@pegasus.com>
Distribution: na
Date: 8 Sep 92 17:24:55

I don't understand the glee that some have expressed in finding a
mention of "Berkeley UNIX" in a SVR4 manual.  This has no effect upon
the trademark status of the term "UNIX", especially because I would be
willing to bet that the manual explicitly points out the trademark
status of "UNIX" in at least one place.

One cannot assert that a trademark has lost its protected status just
because it is a widely-recognized name.  "Kleenex" is almost certainly
a more widely-recognized name than "UNIX", but it is still a
registered trademark of Kimberly-Clark.
--
(Dr.) John Bruner, Deputy Director			bruner@csrd.uiuc.edu
Center for Supercomputing Research & Development	(217) 244-4476 (voice)
University of Illinois at Urbana-Champaign		(217) 244-1351 (FAX)
465 CSRL, MC-264; 1308 West Main St.; Urbana, IL  61801-2307