What does SVR3 have that SVR2 doesn't?

[Doug Gwyn]

In article <16603 at beta.UUCP> hwe at beta.UUCP (Skip Egdorf) writes:
>5. A clause in the license that lets AT&T decide to pull your product
>   whenever THEY decide that you are not really selling SVR3.

That's not what the clause says.  In any case, VARs have a contract
with AT&T and of course violations of the contract by either side
can lead to litigation.  Nothing new there.  The only thing new is
that you can't use their trademark for a product that doesn't meet
their specifications.  Somehow I doubt that this is an innovation
in the annals of contract law.