Relay-Version: version B 2.10 5/3/83; site utzoo.UUCP
Path: utzoo!utgpu!water!watmath!clyde!rutgers!ames!xanth!kent
From: kent@xanth.UUCP
Newsgroups: comp.arch,comp.unix.wizards,comp.os.misc
Subject: Re: Who owns Unix(tm)?...
Message-ID: <2303@xanth.UUCP>
Date: Sun, 30-Aug-87 00:13:38 EDT
Article-I.D.: xanth.2303
Posted: Sun Aug 30 00:13:38 1987
Date-Received: Sun, 30-Aug-87 18:43:50 EDT
References: <1665@ncr-sd.SanDiego.NCR.COM> <8381@utzoo.UUCP> <797@Pescadero.ARPA> <2232@xanth.UUCP> <1272@houdi.UUCP>
Reply-To: kent@xanth.UUCP (Kent Paul Dolan)
Organization: Old Dominion University, Norfolk Va.
Lines: 81
Keywords: stockholder ownership private enterprise
Xref: utgpu comp.arch:1900 comp.unix.wizards:3703 comp.os.misc:110
Summary: Once again (kill if uninterested)

In article <1272@houdi.UUCP> marty1@houdi.UUCP (M.BRILLIANT) writes:
>In article <2232@xanth.UUCP>, kent@xanth.UUCP writes:
>[ long list of references ]
>> ....
>> .... 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.... 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.
>
>[...]
>Regulated monopoly is a special arrangement between a private
>enterprise and the public.  Its purpose is to gain the efficiencies of
>a single supplier, without allowing the supplier to restrict output and
>charge monopoly prices, and without establishing a government
>enterprise.  A private enterprise is granted an exclusive franchise and
>regulated so that it can not charge monopoly prices.

	OK, and we the people included in the regulations for AT&T,
	"you are in the phone business, not the computer business".
>
>A private enterprise operating as a regulated monopoly is not a public
>enterprise, but an alternative to public enterprise.  It is is owned by
>stockholders who are financially responsible for its mistakes and
>entitled to the rewards of its successes.

	As even a casual glance at the record would show, this may
	be true on paper, but has no relation whatever to fact.  In
	fact, no matter how poorly managed, regulated monopolies
	have historically been guaranteed a specific level of return
	on investment, typically in the region of 15%.

>						It is managed by its own
>officers under the direction of a board appointed by its stockholders.
>Its operations are restricted only by the terms of its agreements with
>the governments and agencies that regulate it.  Any inference that its
>assets are owned by anyone but its stockholders is purely imaginary.

	Again, the case here is rather special.  AT&T developed UNIX
	"for internal use only", using monies derived from customer
	billings, at a time when they were forbidden by law to engage
	in the development of computer hardware or software for sale.
	Fine.  They distributed UNIX to non-commercial users at cost
	of media, and got gobs of debugging and upgrade help.  Again,
	all accomplished at phone company customer expense.  Now,
	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.  Sure looks fishy
	to me.  ;-)

	My point (I _must_ have one, right?) is that that product is
	still just fine for AT&T internal use, and any value it has
	in that regard is perfectly legitimate.  However, the added
	commercial value derives from development work during a time
	when commercial software development work by AT&T was _illegal_,
	and, by normal rules of law, should not accrue to AT&T.  Taking
	a look at who might be the next most likely beneficiary of this
	added value, the customers who, all unknowingly, bought and
	paid for it, sure look like the prime candidates.  Since that is
	essentially the entire US populace, plus or minus a few
	phone-phobics, that is pretty much the equivalent of public domain.

>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, considering how badly they
	have ripped off their customer base in this case, and how rich
	it is making them to own UNIX.

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


Not having an employer besides me, I guess one way or another I have to
be responsible for what I say.  Miracles never cease.

Kent, the man from xanth.