In <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>,
on 06/07/2007
at 11:55 AM, "Thompson, Steve" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> said:
>Didn't IBM wait until there was a clear definition of what a system
>that claimed to be a "UNIX" system did before implementing it?
There were two competing definitions; IBM had to document the
deviations from POSIX needed to obtain X-OPEN certification :-(
OTOH, that wasn't IBM's[1] first Unix-like system; there were the IX
and AIX implementations.
>As I recall in reading various of the court
>docs, the court had already warned Microsoft that they could spend
>all the money they wanted, they could not perfect a generic name
>into a trademark (or words to that effect).
Nor was that the first time that a court gave them such a warning.
[1] I'm not counting the non-IBM implimentations on IBM hardware,
e.g., UNIX under TSS.
--
Shmuel (Seymour J.) Metz, SysProg and JOAT
ISO position; see <http://patriot.net/~shmuel/resume/brief.html>
We don't care. We don't have to care, we're Congress.
(S877: The Shut up and Eat Your spam act of 2003)
----------------------------------------------------------------------
For IBM-MAIN subscribe / signoff / archive access instructions,
send email to [EMAIL PROTECTED] with the message: GET IBM-MAIN INFO
Search the archives at http://bama.ua.edu/archives/ibm-main.html
