Relay-Version: version B 2.10 5/3/83; site utzoo.UUCP
Path: utzoo!mnetor!uunet!husc6!hao!oddjob!gargoyle!ihnp4!homxb!houdi!marty1
From: marty1@houdi.UUCP (M.BRILLIANT)
Newsgroups: comp.arch,comp.unix.wizards,comp.os.misc
Subject: Re: Who owns Unix(tm)?...
Message-ID: <1292@houdi.UUCP>
Date: Mon, 31-Aug-87 15:15:05 EDT
Article-I.D.: houdi.1292
Posted: Mon Aug 31 15:15:05 1987
Date-Received: Fri, 4-Sep-87 06:56:38 EDT
References: <1665@ncr-sd.SanDiego.NCR.COM> <8381@utzoo.UUCP> <797@Pescadero.ARPA> <2303@xanth.UUCP>
Organization: AT&T Bell Laboratories, Holmdel
Lines: 64
Keywords: stockholder ownership private enterprise
Summary: AT&T owns UNIX(tm)
Xref: mnetor comp.arch:2033 comp.unix.wizards:4012 comp.os.misc:127

In article <2303@xanth.UUCP>, kent@xanth.UUCP (Kent Paul Dolan) writes:
> In article <1272@houdi.UUCP> marty1@houdi.UUCP (M.BRILLIANT) writes:
> >In article <2232@xanth.UUCP>, kent@xanth.UUCP writes:
> >> .....  At the time Unix was
> >> developed, WITH SUBSCRIBER FUNDS, AT&T was a regulated monopoly,
> >> specifically prohibited from being in the computer business.... an
> >> awfully good case could be made that the customers, NOT Ma Bell, own
> >> Unix.  Considering the AT&T customer base, that is pretty much the
> >> mortal equivalent of public domain.
> >
> >[...]
my answer was
> >Regulated monopoly is a special arrangement between a private
> >enterprise and the public....
> >....  A private enterprise is granted an exclusive franchise and
> >regulated so that it can not charge monopoly prices.

and kent@xanth.UUCP (Kent Paul Dolan) answers:
> 	OK, and we the people included in the regulations for AT&T,
> 	"you are in the phone business, not the computer business".

That was the 1956 consent decree, the "Final Judgment" that was
modified in the "Modified Final Judgment" (MFJ) that created
Divestiture.  I think the orginal idea was to keep AT&T from using its
phone profits to enter the computer business.  (As you see, I agree
that a regulated monopoly is usually guaranteed a profit).

If its purpose was to prevent AT&T from cheating its customers by
misapplying its profits and falsifying its costs, and
> 	.....  AT&T developed UNIX
> 	"for internal use only", using monies derived from customer
> 	billings, ....
then using UNIX was probably the cheapest way to meet the needs of the
phone business.  In that case, UNIX was developed at a saving to the
customers, not at their expense, and UNIX also cost less than a
comparable competitor's product would.  Thus AT&T is probably
underpricing UNIX, not overpricing it, and you benefit from that.  And
if it was intended to prevent unfair competition by AT&T, the MFJ says
that's not a problem now, so you benefit from AT&T's competition.

> 	... comes divestiture, and _instantly_, a company which had been
> 	involved, by law, in no development of hardware or software
> 	for sale has a $30,000 product on the market....
I think that's misleading.  If you knew about all the incompetence
inside AT&T before, during, and after divestiture, you could not
believe it was all done for post-divestiture market dominance.  I can't
explain that without revealing "proprietary" information.

> >Disclaimer:  I usually omit disclaimers, but that's the nicest thing I
> >ever said publicly about my employer, and my employer may disagree.
> 
> 	I'm sure they appreciate the support....
I'm not sure they appreciate being defended on the grounds that they're
too dumb to cheat.

> 					.... considering how badly they
> 	have ripped off their customer base in this case, and how rich
> 	it is making them to own UNIX.
I don't think UNIX(tm) is making AT&T rich.  At best, it's offsetting
the money we're losing in the computer hardware business.

M. B. Brilliant					Marty
AT&T-BL HO 3D-520	(201)-949-1858
Holmdel, NJ 07733	ihnp4!houdi!marty1