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

[glen herrmannsfeldt]

Bill Gunshannon <bill at server3.cs.scranton.edu> wrote:
> In article <524b2edb$0$61281$c3e8da3$5e5e430d at news.astraweb.com>,
>        JF Mezei <jfmezei.spamnot at vaxination.ca> writes:

(snip)
>> 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.
 
(snip)

>>                                                             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.

Is it really? Fair use takes into consideration the value and/or loss
to the copyright holder. There are other considerations, too, but the
loss is a pretty important one. 

>> Would its release harm HP in any way ?
 
> Irrelevant.

For compensatory damages, the loss and/or harm are considered.
There are cases (the one I am remembering was a libel case,
but it could also happen for copyright) where compensatory 
damages were awarded as $1, but very large punative damages.
 
>> 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.

(snip)

>> 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 am pretty sure it is true for trademark. If you don't protect
them you can easily lose them. I believe also for patents, but
I am not so sure about that. I don't know about copyright.
 
> 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.

-- glen