Relay-Version: version B 2.10 5/3/83; site utzoo.UUCP
Path: utzoo!mnetor!uunet!seismo!ut-sally!im4u!rutgers!iuvax!iucs!bobmon
From: bobmon@iucs.UUCP (RAMontante [condition that I not be identified])
Newsgroups: comp.sys.ibm.pc,talk.bizarre
Subject: Re: Silly IBM law suit
Message-ID: <4682@iucs.UUCP>
Date: Thu, 10-Sep-87 00:19:49 EDT
Article-I.D.: iucs.4682
Posted: Thu Sep 10 00:19:49 1987
Date-Received: Sat, 12-Sep-87 03:23:57 EDT
References: <1098@bsu-cs.UUCP> <1760@brspyr1.BRS.Com> <1600@frog.UUCP> <7281@steinmetz.steinmetz.UUCP>
Reply-To: bobmon@iucs.UUCP (RAMontante [condition that I not be identified])
Organization: Indiana University, Bloomington
Lines: 15
Summary: PL/I, not PL/1
Xref: mnetor comp.sys.ibm.pc:7617 talk.bizarre:3616

>|
>|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. 

My manuals all refer to PL/I, that's a capital "I" rather than a "one".  I
was told that this was because the "I"-form is trademark/copyright-able.
"PL/1" has some prior usage as the title of a book (by an IBM employee,
I think).