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

[Johnny Billquist]

On 2013-10-03 09:16, Richard Maher wrote:
> 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. The decision is up to the courts but the onus is on the owner to
> defend their rights. (English-based trade-marks and patents) Copyright
> is sort of "a given" here. Lots of free books on Amazon and there was
> that 50 year Disney extension thing?

But this is *not* trademark or patent, so please drop any arguments 
based on those things. They are very different.

	Johnny