Seeking information on the CSTS Timesharing service

[Bob Smith]

http://www.fundinguniverse.com/company-histories/computer-sciences-corporation-history/
Has some bits of data from my memory.
I did some work on the Mailgram system, putting PDP8/e boxes as comms
front ends to 1108s.


On Mon, Dec 16, 2019 at 8:42 PM jim stephens via cctalk
<cctalk at classiccmp.org> wrote:
>
>
>
> Does anyone have any information on Infonet, which was a timesharing
> which CSC put out?  I've got some info that it had a timesharing service
> called CSTS and would like info on that.
>
> I've got info on the original version of the Pick system which IP was
> owned by TRW and was called GIM.  The CSTS Infonet service provided
> access in some way to IGIM, which is in a manual I just obtained.
>
> So I want to know if there is any CSTS manuals or documents (ideally)
> anyone may have.
>
> Secondly it looks like rather than IBM mainframes for timeshare, the
> systems that Infonet shared were Univac 1108s.  So looking for verifying
> that.
>
> Especially if the systems were all Univac was IGIM running on the 1108.
>
> The time frame for the manual is 1974.  GIM dates from 69 to 70 from a
> TRW contract.  Actual product was obviously running in one form in
> 1974.  There is information that it ran on PDP 11s as well in another form.
>
> While searching for information with Google, I found some court
> proceedings, including a precedent related to RICO charges on
> individuals in Infonet.  If anyone finds the original indictment, or can
> get to it on pacer, I'd appreciate a copy to read, or send message, I'll
> supply the citation.  A better source like Pacer probably will retrieve
> the original indictment.  I only find a decision which was reversed
> related to the indictment.  I suspect there would be a lot of history in
> the indictment around the 1980 ish timeframe of the indictment about how
> CSC ran Infonet.
>
> Short story on what you will find online a lot of spots is a precedent
> set by the 4th Circuit of Appeals which resolved a technicality about
> whether individuals and corporations were the same WRT charges.  The
> ruling that RICO applied to individuals and not corporations was filed
> by a trial court.  But the appeals court said that the actions if they
> constituted RICO by individuals could be go back on the corporation they
> operated in was the precedent. Obviously not a good one for corporations.
>
>
>
> Thanks,
> Jim