Relay-Version: version B 2.10 5/3/83; site utzoo.UUCP
Path: utzoo!mnetor!uunet!steinmetz!davidsen
From: davidsen@steinmetz.steinmetz.UUCP (William E. Davidsen Jr)
Newsgroups: comp.sys.ibm.pc,talk.bizarre
Subject: Re: Silly IBM law suit
Message-ID: <7281@steinmetz.steinmetz.UUCP>
Date: Wed, 9-Sep-87 12:30:26 EDT
Article-I.D.: steinmet.7281
Posted: Wed Sep  9 12:30:26 1987
Date-Received: Fri, 11-Sep-87 05:38:36 EDT
References: <1098@bsu-cs.UUCP> <1760@brspyr1.BRS.Com> <1600@frog.UUCP>
Reply-To: davidsen@crdos1.UUCP (bill davidsen)
Organization: General Electric CRD, Schenectady, NY
Lines: 23
Xref: mnetor comp.sys.ibm.pc:7598 talk.bizarre:3611

In article <1600@frog.UUCP> john@frog.UUCP (John Woods, Software) writes:
|In article <1760@brspyr1.BRS.Com>, sam@brspyr1.BRS.Com (Sam Baxter) writes:
|> 
|How about using >>1 instead :-) ?
|
|When IBM trademarked PL/1, the also trademarked PL/2, PL/3, PL/4, ... through
|I don't know how many.

I have heard this rumor, but I question its validity for several
reasons.  (1) PL/1 is an ANSI standard, and therefore can't be
trademarked to anybody, (2) IBM has not "defended" the PL/1 symbol as a
trademark, one of the requirements, and it is one three manuals just in
my office.  (3) To get a trademark the symbol must be used in interstate
trade, something I doubt that IBM has done. 

Unless there is some hard information proving this, such as filing
dates, indication on manuals that the symbol is a trademark, or
information on suits filed to defend PL/n, I assume that this is just a
repetition of an old rumor.
-- 
	bill davidsen		(wedu@ge-crd.arpa)
  {uunet | philabs | seismo}!steinmetz!crdos1!davidsen
"Stupidity, like virtue, is its own reward" -me