Path: utzoo!utgpu!news-server.csri.toronto.edu!cs.utexas.edu!usc!zaphod.mps.ohio-state.edu!pacific.mps.ohio-state.edu!linac!att!att!mcdchg!ddsw1!karl
From: karl@ddsw1.MCS.COM (Karl Denninger)
Newsgroups: comp.dcom.modems
Subject: Re: Hayes Microcomputer lawsuit???
Summary: Prior art invalidates patents
Message-ID: <1991Feb03.184636.16688@ddsw1.MCS.COM>
Date: 3 Feb 91 18:46:36 GMT
References: <1510@public.BTR.COM> <3759.27a62207@hayes.uucp> <83693@sgi.sgi.com>
Organization: Macro Computer Solutions, Inc., Wheeling, IL
Lines: 31

In article <83693@sgi.sgi.com> vjs@rhyolite.wpd.sgi.com (Vernon Schryver) writes:
>In article <3759.27a62207@hayes.uucp>, tnixon@hayes.uucp writes:
>>   ...    One such 
>> patent is the Heatherington '302 patent, "Modem with Improved Escape 
>> Sequence", which relates to the guard time associated with the "+++" 
>> escape sequence used to change the modem from online to command 
>> state.
>
>I seem to remember that the ARPANET TIP's in the late 1960's and early
>1970's used a similar "guard time" around the "@" character used to signify
>that you wanted to stop talking accross the 56Kb links and fiddle with the
>local modem (well, packet switch, but same idea).  If I remember correctly,
>would that ancient mechanism effect the validity of the Hayes patent?

You bet.  It would likely invalidate it.  Someone should make sure the
defendants in the Hayes suit are aware of this!

>It is strange and unfortunate that such an obvious idea should have a
>defendable patent.  Yes, the idea is obvious even before reading a Hayes
>(compatible) manual.

Yes, it is.

My response to "patents" of this type is to boycott products from that
company.  Towards that end, I simply won't buy any more Hayes products (not
that they've had one worth purchasing in the last 5 years!)

--
Karl Denninger (karl@ddsw1.MCS.COM, <well-connected>!ddsw1!karl)
Public Access Data Line: [+1 708 808-7300], Voice: [+1 708 808-7200]
Macro Computer Solutions, Inc.   "Quality Solutions at a Fair Price"