Path: utzoo!telecom-request Date: 13 May 91 11:59:16 GMT From: Toby Nixon Newsgroups: comp.dcom.telecom Subject: Re: Hayes Wins Damages on its Command Set Patent Message-ID: Organization: Hayes Microcomputer Products, Norcross, GA Sender: Telecom@eecs.nwu.edu Approved: Telecom@eecs.nwu.edu X-Submissions-To: telecom@eecs.nwu.edu X-Administrivia-To: telecom-request@eecs.nwu.edu X-Telecom-Digest: Volume 11, Issue 355, Message 3 of 9 Lines: 58 In article , splee@gnu.ai.mit.edu (Seng-Poh Lee, Speedy) writes: > Interesting how Hayes goes after the smaller retail modem > manufacturers. IBM and AT&T both also make and sell AT modems. I > don't see Hayes challenging them in court. There are also a host of > other modem manufacturers such as Codex, Universal Data Systems (both > owned by Motorola), General DataComm (who I work for), Racal-Milgo, > etc who also manufacture AT modems. Some of the companies you mention have existing patent cross-license agreements with Hayes. Thus, no need for any lawsuits. There are dozens of other companies you didn't mention that also already license Hayes patents, either because they accepted Hayes' invitation to do so or as part of the settlement of other patent lawsuits (e.g., USRobotics and Prometheus were parties in the same lawsuit you referenced, but settled and have taken licenses). Many other companies have approached Hayes seeking licenses since the verdict was announced in the recent trial. The 170+ other US modem manufacturers have received, or soon will receive, invitations to do the same. So, don't jump to the conclusion that just because you haven't seen a media report of Hayes suing to enforce their legitimate patent rights against a particular company that (a) there's any need to, (b) they haven't, or (c) they won't. And remember that in the case of patents, there's no REQUIREMENT that the patent holder license to anyone, or license to everyone in a non-discriminatory fashion. An injunction prohibiting the further shipment of infringing products would not be a pleasant thing for your employer to endure, would it? > I'd like to see Hayes go after these companies. You can bet that > they will have a long court battle with Hayes before they will pay > Hayes any royalty. I'm sure GDC management would be pleased to know that you're publicly and actively seeking lawsuits against your company, and that you think a long and expensive court battle (in the face of a strong precedent-setting decision) would be desirable. Given GDC's financial condition, I'm sure your management would think twice before making such a decision, but they may not think twice about laying off a few people to raise money for the cause. Be careful. I won't comment on this further, except to say that I'm VERY surprised to see ANYONE, in the current highly-litigious high-tech industry, virtually inviting lawsuits, to the extent of laying down public challenges to do so! At the very least, such comments should be kept private. "So sue me" might be a cute thing to say to a neighbor who has complained of your dog crapping in his yard, but it's insane in business today. You sure won't catch ME leaving online messages asking other companies to sue MY employer! Toby Nixon, Principal Engineer | Voice +1-404-840-9200 Telex 151243420 Hayes Microcomputer Products Inc. | Fax +1-404-447-0178 CIS 70271,404 P.O. Box 105203 | UUCP uunet!hayes!tnixon AT&T !tnixon Atlanta, Georgia 30348 USA | Internet hayes!tnixon@uunet.uu.net