Xref: utzoo misc.legal:4957 comp.misc:2493 comp.sys.att:3366 comp.sys.ibm.pc:16020
Path: utzoo!utgpu!water!watmath!looking!brad
From: brad@looking.UUCP (Brad Templeton)
Newsgroups: misc.legal,comp.misc,comp.sys.att,comp.sys.ibm.pc
Subject: Re: AT&T vs. CSS (PC/Tools)
Keywords: AT&T, lawsuit, CSS, PC/Tools
Message-ID: <1697@looking.UUCP>
Date: 31 May 88 02:34:33 GMT
References: <403@mancol.UUCP> <102@dcs.UUCP>
Reply-To: brad@looking.UUCP (Brad Templeton)
Organization: Looking Glass Software Ltd.
Lines: 30

In article <102@dcs.UUCP> wnp@dcs.UUCP (Wolf N. Paul) writes:
>If AT&T had exclusive rights to these utility names, MS would be in trouble
>over DOS -- cd, mkdir, rmdir etc. Again, there are many other packages
>out there using these names for functionally similar programs without being
>bothered by AT&T that I don't think the name or functional definition is
>the issue.

I am sure that if AT&T had wanted to (it's a bit late now) they could
have gotten trade marks on the more unusual Unix command names.  A
trade mark is a unique adjective that identifies a product, and I think
things like "cd", "mkdir", and "rm" all apply.  If anything, Unix is
often under fire for having such unusual, sometimes cryptic command
names.  This proves they are valid trade marks.

Of course, nothing that came from an earlier OS (like Multics) could be
claimed as a TM, and they would have trouble with a descriptive
English name, but many Unix names are not such.

But you can rest easy.  Because AT&T has made no attempt to stop
Microsoft, Mark Williams, Mortis Kern and several others from using these
names, they have given up what rights they might have had, in my
non-lawyer opinion. 

If you want to protect an operating system, function library or language
from cloning, the easist way is probably with trade marks.

Unix, by the way, is a trade mark of AT&T Bell Labs, for its brand of
multi-tasking operating system.
-- 
Brad Templeton, Looking Glass Software Ltd. - Waterloo, Ontario 519/884-7473