HDTenEightyP/NetNews huggingface dataset:
From: frain@cis.ksu.edu (Jerry Frain)
Newsgroups: gnu.misc.discuss
Subject: Re: "official" FSF position on apple
Date: 15 Sep 92 15:18:27 GMT
Organization: Kansas State University
NNTP-Posting-Host: depot.cis.ksu.edu

anthony@csd4.csd.uwm.edu (Anthony J Stieber) writes:

> They charge $2000 for a computer that costs $400 to make.  It sounds
> like they make a lot more money on their hardware than software.

This is only blatantly obvious, since every computer manufacturing
company in the world does it.

Sure, once you have the schematics and the parts list, the machine is
actually quite cheap.  But a lot of research and development goes into
getting these two things.

Let's not forget to mention that the consumer also has to pay for the
marketing of the product, and probably a half-dozen other things I'm
forgetting to mention.

------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Jerry Frain, Systems Programmer         |  "Back off man, I'm a scientist."
Kansas State University                 |  frain@cis.ksu.edu
Department of Computer & Info Sciences  |  ...!rutgers!depot!frain
Xref: sparky gnu.misc.discuss:2933 comp.os.mach:1190
From: friedman@gnu.ai.mit.edu (Noah Friedman)
Newsgroups: gnu.misc.discuss,comp.os.mach
Subject: Re: AT&T USL vs. BSDI/UCB, Mach3, OSF/1, GNU HURD, Linux
Date: 6 Sep 92 20:40:20 GMT
	<PCG.92Sep5151041@aberdb.aber.ac.uk> <18b52oINNicr@agate.berkeley.edu>
Followup-To: gnu.misc.discuss
Organization: Free Software Foundation, 675 Mass Ave. Cambridge, MA 02139
In-reply-to: jbuck@ohm.berkeley.edu's message of 5 Sep 92 20:24:56 GMT

In article <18b52oINNicr@agate.berkeley.edu> jbuck@ohm.berkeley.edu (Joe Buck) writes:
>Example: USL proposes a code comparison, and many similarities are found,
>between SVR4 and Networking-2.  Our side THEN shows that in 95% of such
>cases, the code was written at Berkeley (or contributed to BSD Unix by
>some other University group) and then it later became part of SVR4, and
>that the ideas flowing in the reverse direction are really old technology
>that every computer science major knows.
>
>The judge might very well conclude that USL owes Berkeley more of an
>intellectual debt than vice versa.  Then sue 'em for damaging the good
>name of the university, legal harassment, etc, etc.

I asked rms about this, and here was his reply:

----------------------------------------

Be cautious about projecting what might happen in court if you don't
check it with a lawyer.  I've had many extensive discussions with
lawyers about intellectual property topics, and I still find that the
conclusions I reach are often wrong because of factors I didn't know
about.

    Example: USL proposes a code comparison, and many similarities are found,
    between SVR4 and Networking-2.  Our side THEN shows that in 95% of such
    cases, the code was written at Berkeley (or contributed to BSD Unix by
    some other University group) and then it later became part of SVR4, 

We should not assume that a court will consider this relevant.  But
the terms of BSD gave AT&T permission to use the code from BSD; if
AT&T did so, giving credit as required, the judge might say this was
irrelevant because it was permitted.

It is also possible that it would lead the judge to sympathize more
with UCB.  One cannot tell.

Most likely, Berkeley sources won't be compared with SVR4 sources,
because Berkeley never had SVR4 sources.  Berkeley received Unix 32v,
which was basically version 7.  The question is whether Berkely copied
any of 32v into Networking 2.  People trying to judge this will
compare against 32v sources, not against SVR4.

The issue of AT&T's intellectual debt to CSRG is relevant in the
public relations arena which is where the first battle is being
fought.  The public may care even if the court does not.
Xref: sparky gnu.misc.discuss:2924 comp.os.mach:1184
From: jbuck@ohm.berkeley.edu (Joe Buck)
Newsgroups: gnu.misc.discuss,comp.os.mach
Subject: Re: AT&T USL vs. BSDI/UCB, Mach3, OSF/1, GNU HURD, Linux
Date: 5 Sep 1992 20:24:56 GMT
Organization: U. C. Berkeley
NNTP-Posting-Host: ohm.berkeley.edu

In article <PCG.92Sep5151041@aberdb.aber.ac.uk> pcg@aber.ac.uk (Piercarlo Grandi) writes:
>If I were USL I would sue Microsoft over Windows NT rather than UCB
>over BSD, as Windows NT looks a much more terrible competitor to SVR4
>than BSDI. Unless USL is suing BSDI/UCB as the easier target, to
>establish a precedent, and having done that ...

[ Since I'm posting from a UCB address I should make sure that people know
  I have nothing to do with CSRG or Berkeley Unix or any of that -- I'm in
  the EE side of the EECS dept -- and these are my opinions only ]

BSDI alone, as a small startup, would be an easy target, but the
University of California has billions in assets and a big full-time
legal staff.  Not an easy target at all; it will cost USL big money.
Not to mention that by suing the Regents, USL is suing Pete Wilson,
Willie Brown, Leo McCarthy, and every major politician and many of
the major millionaires in California.  (Networking-2 was released
copyright "The Regents of the University of California" -- the whole
thing, all nine campuses, not just UCB).

I heard comments from one UC lawyer that sounded like she wanted to
pursue a very aggressive strategy, disputing USL's ownership of Unix
itself, given all the major contributions from Berkeley and elsewhere.
Of course, this is filtered through a Daily Cal reporter who didn't
know what he or she was talking about, and lawyers don't reveal their
exact strategy in any case.  But you can expect the defendants to go
beyond pleading innocence, to "Not only did we not steal what's yours,
but Unix isn't yours."  "Trade secrets?  What secrets?  Half the CS
students in the country have seen your code."  Let's get dirty!

Example: USL proposes a code comparison, and many similarities are found,
between SVR4 and Networking-2.  Our side THEN shows that in 95% of such
cases, the code was written at Berkeley (or contributed to BSD Unix by
some other University group) and then it later became part of SVR4, and
that the ideas flowing in the reverse direction are really old technology
that every computer science major knows.

The judge might very well conclude that USL owes Berkeley more of an
intellectual debt than vice versa.  Then sue 'em for damaging the good
name of the university, legal harassment, etc, etc.



--
Joe Buck	jbuck@ohm.berkeley.edu
Xref: sparky gnu.misc.discuss:3021 comp.org.eff.talk:5806 comp.unix.bsd:5591 comp.os.mach:1260 misc.int-property:974
From: max@underg.UUCP (Max Cray)
Newsgroups: gnu.misc.discuss,comp.org.eff.talk,comp.unix.bsd,comp.os.mach,misc.int-property,
Subject: Re: Are you sure UNIX is a trade mark?
Date: Sat, 12 Sep 92 02:11:37 EDT
Organization: Underground Computing Foundation

bruner@sp15.csrd.uiuc.edu (John Bruner) writes:

> to any "UNIX-like" product.  To ensure that this does not happen AT&T
> must (and has) taken action to prevent BSDI from using the trademark
> in an inappropriate way.

But there is more to this than just the name right? I mean BSDI can
just change the name of its product to Berkley Operating System (BOS), or
something if that is all there is to it.

                                          -= Max =-
...!uunet!underg!max
...!cactus.org!underg!max
Xref: sparky gnu.misc.discuss:2981 comp.org.eff.talk:5767 comp.unix.bsd:5454 comp.os.mach:1227 misc.int-property:948 alt.suit.att-bsdi:281
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?
From: ron@zooid.guild.org (Secret Mud)
Date: 10 Sep 92 05:08:47 GMT

From: bruner@sp15.csrd.uiuc.edu (John Bruner)
>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.
>--

I think people would have a better shot at removing the trademark protection
from IBM.  After all, an awful lot of people with any old PC compatable will
say that they have an "IBM".  (Puzzling, since most IBM computers, these days,
are not very compatable at all.)

Kleenex (and Xerox) may be holding on for the moment--but only by sternly
policing any generic usage of their trademark.  A large number of common words
used to be trademarked, but lost that protection when they entered into
common usage for any similar generic product:  Dry Ice, Escalator, Brassiere,
mimeograph, and zipper--all of these used to be trademarked names.
Newsgroups: gnu.misc.discuss
From: bpb9204@tamsun.tamu.edu (Brent)
Subject: Re: "official" FSF position on apple
Organization: Texas A&M Univ., Inc.
Date: Tue, 15 Sep 1992 18:14:02 GMT

frain@cis.ksu.edu (Jerry Frain) writes:
|anthony@csd4.csd.uwm.edu (Anthony J Stieber) writes:
|
|> They charge $2000 for a computer that costs $400 to make.  It sounds
|> like they make a lot more money on their hardware than software.
|
|This is only blatantly obvious, since every computer manufacturing
|company in the world does it.
|
|Sure, once you have the schematics and the parts list, the machine is
|actually quite cheap.  But a lot of research and development goes into
|getting these two things.

And, of course, this is why clones are so cheap.  The designs are "out
there" and since the machine has had very little architectural changes
in the past N years, the R&D costs are pretty much driven away.  Now
that development costs are negligent, they can make machines for cheap
using their existing designs.

I am in full support of what Jerry just said.  So to the FSFers that want
to claim Apple's making a killing off their machines, check out other
companies also.  They aren't very different.

-Brent
bpb9204@tamsun.tamu.edu
Xref: sparky gnu.misc.discuss:2996 comp.org.eff.talk:5783 comp.unix.bsd:5503
From: greg@gallifrey.ucs.uoknor.edu (Greg Trotter)
Subject: Re: Are you sure UNIX is a trade mark?
Originator: usenet@midway.ecn.uoknor.edu
Date: Fri, 11 Sep 1992 21:47:47 GMT
Distribution: inet
Organization: A Planet Of His Own

In article <1992Sep11.195218.11254@eff.org> rita@eff.org (Rita Marie Rouvalis) writes:
>[Whew! what a subject line.. I tried trimming..]
>
>One result of the Anti-Monopoly decision is that now many companies
>such as Xerox, Kleenex, etc. routinely run ads in magazines
>catering to writers asking them *not* to use their product names
>in a generic fashion.

Actually, they've been doing that for years before Anti-Monopoly.

							- greg

-- 
Greg Trotter -- Norman, Oklahoma
greg@gallifrey.ucs.uoknor.edu
Newsgroups: gnu.misc.discuss,comp.org.eff.talk,comp.unix.bsd,comp.os.mach,misc.int-property,alt.suit.att-bsdi
From: bzs@ussr.std.com (Barry Shein)
Subject: Re: Are you sure UNIX is a trade mark?
Organization: The World
	<farrow.716074432@fido.Colorado.EDU> <18ns8rINNd81@agate.berkeley.edu>
	<1992Sep11.084516.16908@infodev.cam.ac.uk>
	<BZS.92Sep11185233@ussr.std.com> <farrow.716341761@fido.Colorado.EDU>
Distribution: inet
Date: Mon, 14 Sep 1992 00:54:04 GMT


Point taken, but I think if this were anything other than a computer
operating system, eg, a laundry detergent or food franchise or some
other commonly understood product, then the variation and wide lack of
control of what is licensed as being called ``Unix'' would be a big,
big issue, and I doubt USL would prevail in such a situation.

The major similarity, at this point in time, between the various
things called Unix is mostly grounded in their dissimilarity to other
things not called Unix. Certainly there's little doubt that SVR4
resembles Ultrix more than it resembles DOS.

But only in the same sense that McDonald's hamburgers resemble Burger
King's hamburgers more than they resemble Kentucky Fried Chicken's
chicken. Such a similarity would not hold, to continue the analogy, a
trademark on all fast-food hamburgers.

Perhaps it is exactly out of this concern that AT&T is playing such
hardball to get vendors to converge on SVR4 (e.g. Solaris 2.0).

Whatever the motivation, it seems to have little or nothing to do with
producing a useful product of marketable quality. At least not thus
far. It smacks more of an attempt to create a monopoly, which coming
from AT&T is not utterly shocking as a behavior.

I suppose then the question is whether the rest of us will stand for
it.

The important thing to keep in mind is that AT&T/USL can accomplish no
such thing without the intervention by force (even if implied) of the
government which operates in our name. This is why they are in the
courts.

Only a govt can grant a monopoly or exclusive marketing rights
(through patents, trademarks and copyrights.) And, hence, in a
democracy (even if representative) it is ultimately our desire being
expressed.

--
        -Barry Shein

Software Tool & Die    | bzs@world.std.com          | uunet!world!bzs
Purveyors to the Trade | Voice: 617-739-0202        | Login: 617-739-WRLD
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
Date: Sun, 13 Sep 1992 01:44:24 GMT

I think there are some misunderstandings here.

AT&T's comment that `BSD UNIX is also known as "Berkeley UNIX"' might
not in itself cause any substantial damage to the trade mark status of
the word "UNIX".

However, here is the situation:  BSDI listed its telephone number as
"ITS-UNIX", referring to its release of BSD.  AT&T countered with a
lawsuit, claiming (among other things) trade mark dilution.

I am countering with the claim that BSD is ALREADY commonly called "BSD
UNIX" or "Berkeley UNIX", and that BSDI has not created such usage, but
is merely continuing the usage of many others *including AT&T*.  THIS
is why what AT&T says is very important.  It indicates that BSDI is not
weakening the distinctiveness of the "UNIX" trade mark, merely
*recognizing* its already weakened state.

Go to the computer books section of your favorite bookstore, and look
carefully.  A LOT of authors and publishers consider BSD to be UNIX.
They use the phrases "BSD UNIX" and "Berkeley UNIX" very freely.  BSD
*is* UNIX.  It makes no sense to me that AT&T should consider BSD's
"ITS-UNIX" labeling of its telephone number to be trade mark dilution.

Now I'm sure some of you will be tempted to counter with, "But the BSD
that BSDI is selling isn't the BSD that's called 'Berkeley UNIX'."

And why not, I might wonder.

"Because BSDI's BSD no longer has AT&T code in it..."

A smart judge would say, "Aha!"
--
Rahul Dhesi <dhesi@rahul.net>
also:  dhesi@cirrus.com
Newsgroups: gnu.misc.discuss
From: sef@kithrup.COM (Sean Eric Fagan)
Subject: Re: "official" FSF position on apple
Organization: Kithrup Enterprises, Ltd.
Date: Tue, 15 Sep 1992 22:45:36 GMT

In article <DREIER.92Sep15145233@lhasa.berkeley.edu> dreier@lhasa.berkeley.edu (Roland Dreier) writes:

I wrote:
>Apple has sued uSoft and HP over "user-interface copyright violation."
and
>USL is suing BSDI and UCB, claiming that the Net/2 tape contains copyrighted
>(or trade-secret-protected) USL code.

Roland wrote:
>So let me get this straight: Apple sued people, claiming their
>copyrights were infringed.  This, of course, was evil and perfectly
>valid grounds for a boycott.  USL is in the process of suing some
>people, claiming that their copyrights were infringed.  Of course,
>this is completely understandable and we shouldn't hold it against
>them.

Now, my first reaction is to say, "Huh?  Are you *stupid*?  Do you or do you
not see any sort of difference between the two paragraphs I wrote?"  But I
won't do that.  I'll just, very calmly, say:

The LPF, the FSF, and a whole mess of people unaffiliated with either
(including myself) do not believe in the validity of a "user-interface"
copyright, that is, that the actions and "look'n'feel" of a program or
system are copyrightable.  A large number of the people in that group
(including myself) believe that making a "user-interface" copyright valid is
going to open up a whole can of worms, and potentially destroy the
free-software market, namely by making it illegal for someone to come up
with a work-alike program for free that some entity has a non-free version
of.

In addition, USL has expressly stated that they *WILL NOT* sue people who
clone their system, such as MWC's Coherent.  Their problem with the Net/2
tape is that they claim it contains portions of their code.  They may or may
not be right; I do not think they are, but I think they may have enough
doubt to justify a lawsuit.

The rest of the posting is more of what I would call idiocy if I were in the
mood, but I'm not, so I'll just call it purposeful ignorance, and leave it
up to Roland to do some research into the subject before posting again.  Or
at least have someone else try to point out his errors.

-- 
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.
Newsgroups: gnu.misc.discuss
From: bjork@telebit.com (Steven Bjork)
Subject: Re: GATT
Organization: Telebit Corporation; Sunnyvale, CA, USA
Date: Tue, 8 Sep 1992 19:48:57 GMT

In article <6SEP199220364557@stars.gsfc.nasa.gov> dc@cobi.gsfc.nasa.gov writes:
>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

So, Dave, I guess you're satisfied with the results of Government for
Business rather than Government for Humans? As in, for instance,
oh, say, the deficit, or perhaps the S&L scandal? Or, how about
the war on the constitution?

__Steven__


Newsgroups: gnu.misc.discuss
From: dhesi@cirrus.com (Rahul Dhesi)
Subject: Re: "official" FSF position on apple
Organization: Cirrus Logic Inc.
Date: Tue, 15 Sep 1992 23:30:08 GMT

In <frain.716570605@depot.cis.ksu.edu.cis.ksu.edu> frain@cis.ksu.edu
(Jerry Frain) writes:

>Let's not forget to mention that the consumer also has to pay for the
>marketing of the product, and probably a half-dozen other things I'm
>forgetting to mention.

Six lawsuits?
-- 
Rahul Dhesi <dhesi@cirrus.com>
also: dhesi@rahul.net
From: bpb9204@tamsun.tamu.edu (Brent)
Newsgroups: gnu.misc.discuss
Subject: Re: "official" FSF position on apple
Date: 16 Sep 1992 01:14:03 GMT
Organization: Texas A&M Univ., Inc.

sef@kithrup.COM (Sean Eric Fagan) writes:
|
|  Are you with me so far, or are the words too big
|yet?
|
|Why don't you try reading the papers that both the FSF and LPF have written.
|Some of the words in them may have more than two syllables, however, so be
|careful.  Maybe you can have a friend help you.

Sean,

Antagonistic personal attacks do not help your cause and, in fact,
just create animosity between us.

And now I quote, "Are you with me so far, or are the words too big yet?"

-Brent
Newsgroups: gnu.misc.discuss,comp.os.mach,comp.org.eff.talk,misc.int-property,comp.unix.bsd,alt.suit.att-bsdi
From: hollaar%basset.utah.edu@cs.utah.edu (Lee Hollaar)
Subject: Re: Are you sure UNIX is a trade mark?
Date: 11 Sep 92 22:47:30 MDT
Organization: University of Utah CS Dept
Distribution: inet

In article <1992Sep11.132456.1985@hellgate.utah.edu> I write:
>Congress acted almost made changes to the Lanham Act (the trademark law) to
>reverse the holding in the Anti-Monopoly case (Trademark Clarification Act of
>1984, P.L. 98-620).

That sentence should be "Congress almost immediately made changes ..."

For a discussion of the changes and their rationale, see the legislative
history for Public Law 98-620.  Any law library will have it.
Newsgroups: gnu.misc.discuss
From: bill@Celestial.COM (Bill Campbell)
Subject: Re: "official" FSF position on apple
Organization: Celestial Software, Mercer Island, WA
Date: Tue, 15 Sep 1992 18:37:37 GMT

In <frain.716570605@depot.cis.ksu.edu.cis.ksu.edu> frain@cis.ksu.edu (Jerry Frain) writes:

:anthony@csd4.csd.uwm.edu (Anthony J Stieber) writes:

:> They charge $2000 for a computer that costs $400 to make.  It sounds
:> like they make a lot more money on their hardware than software.

:This is only blatantly obvious, since every computer manufacturing
:company in the world does it.

This is a normal ratio for any manufactured product.  The retail
price is generally 5 times the cost to manufacture.  I believe the
PC computer industry is generally less than this because of
extreme competition and low margins (and this explains why so
many retailers go out of business).  Charles Tandy put it simply.
``If you don't have the gross margin going in, you won't have any
profit coming out.''.

Bill
-- 
INTERNET:  bill@Celestial.COM   Bill Campbell; Celestial Software
UUCP:   ...!thebes!camco!bill   6641 East Mercer Way
             uunet!camco!bill   Mercer Island, WA 98040; (206) 947-5591
SPEED COSTS MONEY -- HOW FAST DO YOU WANT TO GO?
Newsgroups: gnu.misc.discuss,comp.org.eff.talk,comp.unix.bsd,comp.os.mach
From: morse@quark.mpr.ca (Daryl Morse)
Subject: Re: Socially-Responsible Long Distance (was: AT&T Long Distance Boycott)
Organization: MPR Teltech Ltd., Burnaby, BC, Canada.
	<1992Sep2.134252.4475@Warren.MENTORG.COM>
	<CKD.92Sep2105324@loiosh.eff.org>
	<JYM.92Sep9123430@remarque.berkeley.edu>
	<FOX.92Sep10084758@graphics.nyu.edu>
Distribution: na
Date: 10 Sep 92 09:37:29


In article <FOX.92Sep10084758@graphics.nyu.edu> fox@cs.nyu.edu (David Fox) writes:

   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?

Yah, and what are Sprint's views on the ANC, the PLO, the IRA, social
welfare, medicare, the Democrats, the Rupublicans, the ACLU, the NCAA,
nuclear power, logging, and recycling? 8-)

Seriously, what does any of this have to do with the topic of the
newsgroup? Can we please take this discussion somewhere else? If I
wanted to hear a debate about abortion, I'd subscribe to
talk.abortion.

Thanks.
--
Daryl Morse                     | Voice  : (604) 293-5476
MPR Teltech Ltd. 		| Fax    : (604) 293-5787
8999 Nelson Way, Burnaby, BC    | E-Mail : morse@mpr.ca
Canada, V5A 4B5                 |        : mprgate.mpr.ca!morse@uunet.uu.net
Newsgroups: gnu.misc.discuss