Relay-Version: version B 2.10 5/3/83; site utzoo.UUCP
Path: utzoo!mnetor!uunet!husc6!cmcl2!rutgers!ames!sdcsvax!ucbvax!decvax!linus!philabs!rlw
From: rlw@philabs.Philips.Com (Richard Wexelblat)
Newsgroups: comp.sys.ibm.pc,talk.bizarre
Subject: Re: Silly IBM law suit (Urban folklore div.)
Message-ID: <1703@briar.Philips.Com>
Date: Thu, 10-Sep-87 12:59:48 EDT
Article-I.D.: briar.1703
Posted: Thu Sep 10 12:59:48 1987
Date-Received: Sat, 12-Sep-87 17:43:39 EDT
References: <1098@bsu-cs.UUCP> <1760@brspyr1.BRS.Com> <1600@frog.UUCP>
Reply-To: rlw@briar.philips.com.UUCP (Richard Wexelblat)
Organization: Philips Laboratories, Briarcliff Manor, NY
Lines: 27
Xref: mnetor comp.sys.ibm.pc:7670 talk.bizarre:3651

In article <1600@frog.UUCP> john@frog.UUCP (John Woods, Software) writes:
>When IBM trademarked PL/1, the also trademarked PL/2, PL/3, PL/4, ... through
>I don't know how many.
>
>John Woods, Charles River Data Systems, Framingham MA, (617) 626-1101

Wrongo, Bozo.

First of all, it's PL/I, not PL/1.  Secondly, IBM explicitly disclaimed any
rights to the name PL/I at some point during the PL/I standardization
activity.

I personally checked this information with the following people:

	Editor, ACM SIGPLAN Notices
	Editor, "History of Programming Languages"
	A former Vice Chairman of X3J1, the ANSI PL/I standardization Cte.
	A member of the SHARE PL/I Project (1965-1972)

and they all agreed.  (Never known so many technical people to agree so
unanimously of a point of argument!)


-- 

--Dick Wexelblat  {uunet|ihnp4|decvax}!philabs!rlw
		  rlw@philabs.philips.com