When the internet was a new thing, people didn’t have the Internet

By KATE HARRIS – BOSTON TIMES (AP) When the internet first came along, there were no rules about who could access it.

It was free, and everyone had access to it.

Now, the internet is widely used by people all over the world.

But many people have yet to find out what it is, or even who controls it.

A new documentary, “The Internet is Our Invention,” chronicles the history of the internet and explores the future of online commerce, from the invention of the personal computer to the current state of the world’s economy.

The film is the first in a new series by the U.S.-based nonprofit Internet Archive and is set to air on PBS in October.

For a movie that focuses on an industry that is still in its infancy, it’s a fitting title.

“We can’t even think of the Internet as a thing that we invented,” said filmmaker and producer David Shuster.

“We just created the Internet.”

The film focuses on a story that began in the early 1970s, when Internet pioneer Bob Kahn created the first personal computer.

At the time, people had only a few computers and few connections to the Internet.

In those days, it was a very different world, with lots of options, but not a lot of choice.

After a year of experimenting with new systems, Kahn had his system running.

But then the government in the U, at the time the U: Department of Defense, shut down the internet.

Kahn didn’t know what was happening.

“What if the Internet is just gone?” he wondered.

The government shut down his computer and told him it was no longer possible to operate.

Kahn had to move on.

He went to the National Science Foundation and received a grant to build his first personal machine, the Model II.

Kahn’s machine was a small computer with a single floppy disk, which was an easy way to store data.

Its main purpose was to be able to read the computer’s instructions.

But in 1971, when Kahn’s machine first launched, it ran out of space.

It needed more memory.

So it took a new computer to add more RAM.

Kahn would later tell his son, “I have to keep going.”

In 1976, Kahn sold his computer company to Intel for $7 million.

But the company that had been helping to develop the Model I, the IBM PC, had moved on to make its own personal computer, the PC-98.

In 1978, Kahn and Intel merged, with Intel owning the PC and Kahn becoming chairman.

The merger left IBM’s PC brand under Kahn’s control.

But he also took a share of the company’s revenue, which he could not control.

In the process, Kahn got a taste of what it was like to have a big company controlling his intellectual property.

On Feb. 17, 1980, a week before IBM’s first public stock offering, the public learned about the patent pending for the new PC.

“IBM has sued us and filed suit against us,” Kahn wrote to a friend, who was an IBM engineer.

“You guys should take this seriously.”

It was a bit of a shock to Kahn, who had worked for IBM for more than a decade.

IBM didn’t own the patent.

The company had filed the patent only because Kahn’s company had built the original Model I. “I don’t want to be sued,” Kahn told a reporter, “but I’m really pissed off.”IBM didn’t sue Kahn for infringement of the patent, but rather for violating a legal doctrine known as fair use.

If someone sells something for profit, it is fair to use the copyrighted work for purposes other than that intended.

IBM sued Kahn for copyright infringement.

It had also sued him for trademark infringement.

Kahn argued that he was entitled to a share in the profits, saying IBM had sold the PC for $50,000 and that he had “a very substantial interest in the market.”IBMB’s lawyers argued that Kahn had no interest in using the computer, and that the sale had been part of a “massive, successful and sustained market for IBM’s new computer technology.”

IBM countered that Kahn’s share of revenues was the “primary factor” in determining whether IBM had infringed the patent and that Kahn was merely a “suspect” who was suing for trademark reasons.

In court, the trial judge ruled that Kahn didn “not have a substantial interest” in the sales and therefore was not entitled to copyright protection.

He also said that IBM’s lawyers had made no “objective” case that the patent was infringed.

In a ruling that was widely read in the computer industry, the judge said that the court’s ruling was “unreasonable and capricious.”

In an interview with The Associated Press, Kahn said he was pleased that the ruling “put a stop to a lot more of the litigation that is out there