Relay-Version: version B 2.10 5/3/83; site utzoo.UUCP
Posting-Version: version B 2.10.3 alpha 4/15/85; site seismo.UUCP
Path: utzoo!decvax!harpo!whuxlm!akgua!gatech!seismo!stev
From: stev@seismo.UUCP (Stev Knowles)
Newsgroups: net.micro.att
Subject: Re: XENIX 3.0
Message-ID: <2369@seismo.UUCP>
Date: Tue, 21-May-85 22:16:41 EDT
Article-I.D.: seismo.2369
Posted: Tue May 21 22:16:41 1985
Date-Received: Thu, 23-May-85 02:00:19 EDT
References: <2343@seismo.UUCP> <10846@brl-tgr.ARPA>
Distribution: na
Organization: Center for Seismic Studies, Arlington, VA
Lines: 22

In article <10846@brl-tgr.ARPA>, ron@brl-tgr.ARPA (Ron Natalie <ron>) writes:
> > * XENIX is a trademark, possibly of att,
> > * the washington post, thought, is NOT a trademark of att.
> XENIX is a trademark of Microsoft.

yes, i thought it was a trademark of microsoft, but i could not imagine that
att would market a unix that was not their own, but i suppose i was wrong,
so what else is new(8-).
correction:
XENIX is a trademark of microsoft*
the washington post, though, is Not a trademark of att.
nor is microsoft a trademark of att

ps. i *think* that this is a licenced clone, from att. are there any UN*X
    like o/s that are not licenced by att? does att have any rights to the
    name when it is sublicenced? does this belong in net.legal? i dont read
    net legal . . . . .


    stev knowles  stev@seismo
		  ( the above opinions can be sublicenced from me, just get in
		  touch.)