AT&T vs. CSS (PC/Tools)

[Paul S. R. Chisholm]

In article <308 at marob.MASA.COM>, samperi at marob.MASA.COM (Dominick Samperi) writes:
>            . . . the article said that AT&T won a settlement against CSS
> because CSS "used ideas from UNIX." Source code copying may not have been
> the issue.

It's my understanding that source license and copyright violations were
the problem, not "look and feel".  Ideas can't be copywritten.  They
*can* be patented.  (Trivia question:  what idea from the early T&R
UNIX(R) operating system *was* patented?  Answer below.)

>            The question is: if I develop tools that have the same (or more)
> functionality as some of the standard UNIX tools (ls, rm, cpio, tar, etc.),
> then can I use the same program names?

I can't think of any objection.  Those names can't be copywritten,
either.  They could have been trademarked, but they weren't.  (I can
see it all now:  "grep is a trademark of AT&T":-)

> And if not, can I use the word "UNIX" in describing the functionality
> of the tools?

UNIX is a registered trademark of AT&T.  I don't know exactly what
restrictions that puts on you.  (AT&T's official policy is that the
word "UNIX" is an adjective, so rather than "UNIX-like", if you use the
"U" word, you should say "UNIX system-like".  No, repeat, no comment.)

> Does MKS have a license from AT&T?

Not so far as I know.  What's to license?  The look and feel of grep?
So far as I know, MKS didn't port UNIX system code; they reimplemented
the tools.  AT&T officially neither approves or disapproves of MKS's
work.  (Some of us sure do appreciate it, though.)

-Paul S. R. Chisholm, {ihnp4,cbosgd,allegra,rutgers}!mtune!lznv!psc
AT&T Mail !psrchisholm, Internet psc at lznv.att.com
I'm not speaking for my employer, I'm just speaking my mind.
I'm not a member of the bar; for legal advice, consult a lawyer.

AT&T was awarded a patent for Dennis Ritchie's invention of the set
user ID and set group ID bits.