Relay-Version: version B 2.10 5/3/83; site utzoo.UUCP
Path: utzoo!mnetor!uunet!husc6!bloom-beacon!gatech!amdcad!phil
From: phil@amdcad.AMD.COM (Phil Ngai)
Newsgroups: comp.arch,comp.unix.wizards,comp.os.misc
Subject: Re: Who owns Unix(tm)? (was: Re: Mach, the new standard?)
Message-ID: <18019@amdcad.AMD.COM>
Date: Sun, 23-Aug-87 14:50:40 EDT
Article-I.D.: amdcad.18019
Posted: Sun Aug 23 14:50:40 1987
Date-Received: Sun, 23-Aug-87 23:48:06 EDT
References: <1665@ncr-sd.SanDiego.NCR.COM> <8381@utzoo.UUCP>
Reply-To: phil@amdcad.UUCP (Phil Ngai)
Organization: Advanced Micro Devices
Lines: 26
Keywords: Gross overbearing ripoff!
Xref: mnetor comp.arch:1881 comp.unix.wizards:3850 comp.os.misc:92

In article <2232@xanth.UUCP> kent@xanth.UUCP (Kent Paul Dolan) writes:
>the gall of AT&T
>claiming to "own" Unix(tm) really gets to me.  At the time Unix was
>developed, WITH SUBSCRIBER FUNDS, AT&T was a regulated monopoly,
>specifically prohibited from being in the computer business.  

They were not in the computer business but they needed computers as
tools. Thus it seems reasonable for them to work on computers FOR
INTERNAL USE. 

As to the ownership of the Unix (brand) operating system, I imagine
they'd argue that the profits from licensing Unix products helps them
keep their line charges lower than they would be otherwise so the
subscribers ARE deriving benefit from the product they helped fund. 

Another tack would be to say it was funded by the stockholders, not
the subscribers.

Operating a business on a cost plus guaranteed profit basis, as most
regulated monopolies are, is a bad method anyway, and leads to
confusion such as we have here, as well as inefficiencies. 

-- 
I speak for myself, not the company.

Phil Ngai, {ucbvax,decwrl,allegra}!amdcad!phil or amdcad!phil@decwrl#Kb#Kb#