I was confused about the AT&T complaint, since AT&T and the Bell system were the same My italics for the confusing part): > What is even more interesting, howe

I was confused about the AT&T complaint, since AT&T and the Bell system were the same My italics for the confusing part): > What is even more interesting, however, is that Noll almost got into trouble for submitting the Bell System seal to producers who then displayed the seal outside of the video-phone booth in the movie (shown below). AT&T accused Bell System of violating a consent decree, which outlined that the Bell System could only cover domestic telecommunication. By depicting the logo in a space station in the film, it was implied that the System worked in space, which violated the consent decree … crazy right? Fortunately, they were able to settle the dispute. Turns out this is likely be a typo. AT&T was afraid that the movie's depiction might imply that they were willing to violate their consent decree, and I guess the lawyers wanted to claim it was unauthorized in case the government contacted them. Kind of like the blustery letters lawyers sometimes send about trademarks: they have no intention of doing anything, but have to demonstrate that they "took steps to defend their trademark". This is explained at this link that covers a lot of the same material (not surprising for an archivist, who was probably the same source for both): https://ethw.org/First-Hand:Bell_Labs_and_2001:_A_Space_Odyssey https://ethw.org/First-Hand:Bell_Labs_and_2001:_A_Space_Odys... > After the movie appeared in early 1968, a manager at AT&T telephoned me to complain strongly that the Bell System seal had been used in the movie. AT&T objected because the use of the Bell seal implied that the Bell System was providing telecommunication service outside the United States, which court decree forbade it from doing. When I told the AT&T person that Pierce had approved my effort I was saved from the wrath. ...