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

[Phillip Helbig---undress to reply]

In article <l2j5ji$pbe$1 at speranza.aioe.org>, Richard Maher
<maher_rjSPAMLESS at hotmail.com> writes: 

> On 10/3/2013 2:41 PM, Phillip Helbig---undress to reply wrote:
> > In article <524cc113$0$59876$c3e8da3$e074e489 at news.astraweb.com>, JF
> > Mezei <jfmezei.spamnot at vaxination.ca> writes:
> >
> >> But if HP does not respond, and the party can show due diligence and
> >> multiple attempts to get an answer from HP, a judge will have to use
> >> something called "judgement" (that is what judges are there for :-).
> >> The argument that HP has abandonned claims of ownership through lack of
> >> response becomes important.
> >
> >> Making the source of the PDP11 operating systems public will not deprive
> >> anyone of revenues and if any, might in fact generate puzz/pbhlicity for
> >> those old machines and increase chances that XX2247 might increase its
> >> revenues from it.
> >
> > I think you seriously misunderstand the entire concept.  If HP owns the
> > copyright, and HP decides not to respond, this does not weaken their
> > claim to copyright.
> >
> 
> I am also not a dentist but my "understanding" of the law, certainly 
> from the Trade Mark and Patent point of view, if you do not defend your 
> claim then there is an argument to be made that you have abandoned your 
> rights. 

Right, but the whole discussion here involves copyright (the right to
copy something), not trade marks or patents.  If HP stop caring about
VMS, then I could write my own operating system and call it VMS (one can
already use VMS in contexts where there is no chance of confusion, and
indeed there are many other uses for "VMS" which have nothing to do with
computers) since I could argue that they haven't defended their trade
mark.  However, I do not magically get the right to distribute copies of
DEC/Compaq/HP VMS software, licenses etc.