Xref: utzoo misc.legal:4995 comp.misc:2547 comp.sys.att:3422 comp.sys.ibm.pc:16227
Path: utzoo!dciem!nrcaer!scs!spl1!laidbak!att!alberta!ubc-cs!uw-beaver!mit-eddie!rutgers!mtunx!whuts!homxb!genesis!hotlr!chuck
From: chuck@hotlr.ATT ( C J Luciano hotld)
Newsgroups: misc.legal,comp.misc,comp.sys.att,comp.sys.ibm.pc
Subject: Re: AT&T vs. CSS (PC/Tools)
Message-ID: <395@hotlr.ATT>
Date: 2 Jun 88 19:51:40 GMT
Article-I.D.: hotlr.395
References: <403@mancol.UUCP> <102@dcs.UUCP>
Reply-To: chuck@hotlr.UUCP (54316 - C J Luciano hotld)
Organization: AT&T-BL Holmdel NJ - Lab 5431
Lines: 11


 > The reason I say this is that there have been other, commercially more
 > significant, UNIX-lookalikes which AT&T did not bother. Also, when PC/VI
 > first made its appearance, a friend of mine in the Boston area told me
 > he had heard from a friend who had access to both UNIX and PC/VI source
 > code that the sources resembled each other so closely, down to flaws in
 > the coding style, that he was conviced PC/VI was a rip-off.

I believe that AT&T would not be the one who should be concerned here since
VI is licensed by AT&T from University of California at Berkeley. Therefore
it's UCB's problem.