Path: utzoo!mnetor!uunet!lll-winken!lll-lcc!lll-tis!ames!nrl-cmf!cmcl2!brl-adm!brl-smoke!gwyn
From: gwyn@brl-smoke.ARPA (Doug Gwyn )
Newsgroups: comp.unix.wizards
Subject: Re: What does SVR3 have that SVR2 doesn't?
Message-ID: <7501@brl-smoke.ARPA>
Date: 20 Mar 88 05:50:51 GMT
References: <1062@maynard.BSW.COM> <10161@ulysses.homer.nj.att.com> <16603@beta.UUCP>
Reply-To: gwyn@brl.arpa (Doug Gwyn (VLD/VMB) <gwyn>)
Organization: Ballistic Research Lab (BRL), APG, MD.
Lines: 9

In article <16603@beta.UUCP> hwe@beta.UUCP (Skip Egdorf) writes:
>5. A clause in the license that lets AT&T decide to pull your product
>   whenever THEY decide that you are not really selling SVR3.

That's not what the clause says.  In any case, VARs have a contract
with AT&T and of course violations of the contract by either side
can lead to litigation.  Nothing new there.  The only thing new is
that you can't use their trademark for a product that doesn't meet
their specifications.  Somehow I doubt that this is an innovation
in the annals of contract law.