Path: utzoo!utgpu!news-server.csri.toronto.edu!clyde.concordia.ca!uunet!cs.utexas.edu!samsung!brutus.cs.uiuc.edu!psuvax1!rutgers!okstate!minich
From: minich@a.cs.okstate.edu (MINICH ROBERT JOHN)
Newsgroups: comp.sys.mac
Subject: Re: PhoneNET receives patent
Message-ID: <5476@okstate.UUCP>
Date: 20 Mar 90 07:24:15 GMT
References: <1699@diamond2.UUCP>
Organization: Oklahoma State Univ., Stillwater
Lines: 50

jordan@Apple.COM (Jordan Mattson) writes:
+ Dear Friend -
+ ...they were [are] going to license the patents to interested parties.  
+ And what is wrong with people making money off of their skull sweat....

Nothing, if it's really sweat and NOT fly's wiz. (Read on, folks.)
 
From article <1699@diamond2.UUCP>, by derosa@cell.mot.COM (John DeRosa):
} The following is a flame:
} The point is that they have had phonenet out for many moons, have let
} the clones do their thing and now are lowering the boom. [...] 
 
One thing Apple has NOT done. Thanks, Apple. (sort of)

} I predict that several small companies will probable go belly up
} because of this or (and this is certain) the price of the clones
} will go up (because of the licensing fees) AND Farrallon will 
} raise their prices OR keep them steady for an extended period
} or time. [...]

  Ok, can we say overreaction? If this sends anyone belly up, either Farallon
will get NONE of my business (for being greedy -- now if someone would let
me NOT buy Apple :-) or those companies aren't really any big loss. I'd hate
to depend on a single product the likes of PhoneNet style connectors for
the entire purpose-in-life of a businness.

  I think there are a couple really interesting points on this phonenet patent
BS. First off, I remember reading something written not long after Apple came
out with AppleTalk (back when Apple == LocalTalk + AppleTalk) that discussed
how you could build yourself network cabling with modular phone parts. It was
sent out to BBSdom. (I assume, since I found it on one :-) Now, I don't think
the original author claimed any rights to the ideas in the document, but he
did say something to the effect of "...and some companaies will probably start
making these anytime now, so you won't have to make them yourself. ..." 
  So, IMHO I completely believe that Farallon is doing something immoral by
taking an idea WHICH IT DID NOT CREATE.*  In fact, I think they are a bunch
of turkeys for even going after a patent. (Well, if the licensing is free [yeah
right] then I take this back.) I guess I could come out with a keyboard cable
extender for the Plus and earlier with modular phone parts and sue anyone who
happens to make something similiar (Kensington?), right? Hell, it's not any 
incredibly bright idea we're talking about here! Leave it in the public domain.

  Back to the above mentioned document: The most interesting part of the whole
thing is that it explained what incredibly HORRID decisions Apple made in it's
choice of a cabling system. Apparently, LocalTalk is not A class workmanship
for a half decent EE. Oh well.

  If anyone knows the article I'm talking about, PLEASE post it. If I can
dig it up somewhere, I'll send it along. Unfortunately, I have find that 
specific BBS first. :-(