[Info-vax] [Attn: HP Employees] PDP-11 OS hobbyist licensing

[Bill Gunshannon]

In article <524b2edb$0$61281$c3e8da3$5e5e430d at news.astraweb.com>,
	JF Mezei <jfmezei.spamnot at vaxination.ca> writes:
> On 13-10-01 16:02, Bill Gunshannon wrote:
> 
>> Are all Canadians as naive as you are?
> 
> Nop. I am a special case. :-)  There are some normal Canadians here and
> there.
> 
>>> HP would get so much bad PR from that, 
>> 
>> How does one get bad PR from protecting one's own property?
> 
> HP suing some small company for a museum-worthy product HP never
> marketed and didn't even know it had rights to. This would look very bad.

To who?  It wouldn't even make the back page of any paper I have ver seen.

> 
> Say that XXY company donated the source to the computer museum. How
> would HP react ?

Same rules.  And no reputable computer museum would ever take it and
make it public without verifying the legaility.  Do you remember PUPS
The PDP Unix Preservation Society).  You had to provide them with a
copy of your AT&T license to get access to the archives.

> 
> When was the last time HP sold anything related to PDP-11 ? 

Why do you think that is relevant?

>                                                             Would the
> act of donating it to the museum constitute breach of copyright in the
> sense that the museum would then take the IP and make money from it ?

How much money do the people who steal music make from the things they
steal?  This is also irrelevant.  Unless the license agtreement with
the owner of the IP in question said you could do it, yes, it would
breach the copyright.  I have tapes containing RT-11, RSX and RSTS that
I got from Mentec along with a license to use them here at the University.
It specifically requires that I ensure the covered software remains in my
control.

> 
> Does the source of the PDP-11 operating systemns have any value today ?

Irrelevant.

> Would its release harm HP in any way ?

Irrelevant.

> 
> 
> Again, this is in a context where HP does not respond to requests to
> open source the PDP-11 OS. If HP responded to those requests, my
> attitude would be very different.

HP has no requirement to cater to your whims.

> 
> 
>> HP already has lawyers on staff.  What makes you think the cost would be
>> high?
> 
> dept A would have to budget for the time spend by the lawyers in dept B
> at HP. Just because they are internal to HP does not mean that there is
> no cost to them.
> 

Protecting HP's IP is already one of their jobs and therefore already
budgeted.

> And is there any department within HP which would want to allocate
> budget for this product they never had ?

See above.  Protecting HP's IP is already part of the legal departments
job.

> 
>> No. There is no such thing in law as "implicit public domain".
> 
> If a company does not protect its IP and keeps a blind eye to breaches
> of copyright/patent infringement, it loses the right to defend that
> IP/copyright later on.

1.  That is not necessarily so.  Try it and see where you end out.
2.  It still isn't "public domain" as that is a very specific legal
    concept and the requirements are spelled out plainly in many
    places.

I suggest you find a nearby college that actually offers classes on
Copyrights and Intelectual Property and that you sit in on them. The
real world is very different from the one you appear to be living in.

bill

-- 
Bill Gunshannon          |  de-moc-ra-cy (di mok' ra see) n.  Three wolves
billg999 at cs.scranton.edu |  and a sheep voting on what's for dinner.
University of Scranton   |
Scranton, Pennsylvania   |         #include <std.disclaimer.h>