Xref: utzoo comp.sys.att:3638 comp.unix.questions:7805 comp.sys.ibm.pc:16743 Path: utzoo!utgpu!water!watmath!clyde!att!osu-cis!tut.cis.ohio-state.edu!bloom-beacon!mit-eddie!uw-beaver!tektronix!tekcrl!tekgvs!keithe From: keithe@tekgvs.TEK.COM (Keith Ericson) Newsgroups: comp.sys.att,comp.unix.questions,comp.sys.ibm.pc Subject: Re: AT&T vs. CSS (PC/Tools) Keywords: AT&T, lawsuit, CSS, PC/Tools, PC/VI Message-ID: <3638@tekgvs.TEK.COM> Date: 28 Jun 88 18:46:18 GMT References: <403@mancol.UUCP> <102@dcs.UUCP> <395@hotlr.ATT> <109@dcs.UUCP> <308@marob.MASA.COM> <1383@lznv.ATT.COM> <142@wash08.UUCP> Reply-To: keithe@tekgvs.UUCP (Keith Ericson) Distribution: na Organization: Tektronix, Inc., Beaverton, OR. Lines: 11 In article <142@wash08.UUCP> txr98@wash08.UUCP (Timothy Reed) writes: >A friend at ATT told me last year that ATT owned more than afew copies >of the MKS toolkit on DOS PCs at most of their sites in Jersey. If MKS >didn't license unix from ATT, would that be considered tacit approval? > Never assume that any one part of a large organization even knows, much less approves, of what another department, section, group or whatever is doing. keith