They can't have enforced it all that hard. I've seen a few like these: http://www.update.uu.se/~pontus/slask/front_paneler/pdp-8m-cc-computer-control.JPG http://www.update.uu.se/~pontus/slask/front_paneler/pdp-8e-cddp.jpg http://www.update.uu.se/~pontus/slask/front_paneler/pdp-8l-UCC.jpg
/P On Tue, Jun 09, 2015 at 06:50:52PM +0100, Rod Smallwood wrote: > There was a letter that went to a large terminals digital oem in > about 1975 stating as below as being the position. > Guess who signed the letter? I''ll give you a hint. It wasn't Ken Olsen! > > On 09/06/2015 15:30, Paul Koning wrote: > >>On Jun 9, 2015, at 3:58 AM, Rod Smallwood <rodsmallwoo...@btinternet.com> > >>wrote: > >> > >> > >>DEC was very keen on its OEM business and if the order was big enough would > >>allow some variation in colours but would not allow the dec logo to be > >>removed or changed. > >I’m not sure if that’s completely true. I remember a PDP11 (11/45 probably) > >at the University of Illinois, around 1975. It was used as a terminal > >controller for ARPAnet. The system was called ANTS (not sure what that > >stands for), and it had a custom logo panel for the top of the H960 racks, > >in red and yellow, showing large ants crawling all along the cabinets. > > > >Not allowing the logo to be changed would make sense, since that is one of > >the rules of trademarks: you risk losing a trademark if you don’t use it > >consistently, for example if you create or allow variations of what was > >registered. > > > > paul > > > > >
