Path: utzoo!utgpu!news-server.csri.toronto.edu!cs.utexas.edu!uunet!olivea!mintaka!ai-lab!ai.mit.edu!tmb From: tmb@ai.mit.edu (Thomas M. Breuel) Newsgroups: comp.dcom.modems Subject: Re: Hayes Microcomputer lawsuit??? Message-ID: <13249@life.ai.mit.edu> Date: 8 Feb 91 07:48:52 GMT References: <143610@pyramid.pyramid.com> <1991Feb8.043622.13204@Think.COM> Sender: news@ai.mit.edu Reply-To: tmb@ai.mit.edu Organization: MIT Artificial Intelligence Lab Lines: 20 In article <1991Feb8.043622.13204@Think.COM>, barmar@think.com (Barry Margolin) writes: |> Actually, when the competitors each have their own patents, there's a third |> result: (c) they make cross-licensing deals, and everyone wins. Ford says |> to GM: I'll let you use my gas pedal patent if you let me use your steering |> wheel patent; GM says to Dodge: I'll let you use my steering wheel patent |> if you let me use your brake patent; and Dodge says to Ford: I'll let you |> use my brake patent if you let me use your gas pedal patent. Voila! The |> prices are unchanged, and cars are all compatible. |> |> Now, if Chrysler comes along and doesn't have anything of value to trade, |> it can't get in on the deal. The patent system encourages Chysler to |> invent something that the other manufacturers will need. False, not everybody wins. Big companies win. Small companies and individual inventors generally don't have a large store of patents that are of interest to large companies. So, a large company is usually in a position of keeping a small company from entering the market by refusing to licence some technology to the small company, but the reverse is not true. Increasing the cost of entry is hardly the purpose or intention of the patent system.