Xref: utzoo gnu.misc.discuss:3140 comp.misc:12603 comp.dcom.modems:9815 Path: utzoo!utgpu!news-server.csri.toronto.edu!rpi!think.com!snorkelwacker.mit.edu!ai-lab!life!tmb From: tmb@ai.mit.edu (Thomas M. Breuel) Newsgroups: gnu.misc.discuss,comp.misc,comp.dcom.modems Subject: Re: hayes lawsuit Message-ID: Date: 19 May 91 08:35:27 GMT References: <1991May14.034600.7891@rfengr.com> <1991May18.091829.14936@umbc3.umbc.edu> <1991May18.102918.8003@beach.csulb.edu> <1991May18.154225.2699@unlinfo.unl.edu> Sender: news@ai.mit.edu Distribution: usa Organization: MIT Artificial Intelligence Lab Lines: 49 In-reply-to: riddle@hoss.unl.edu's message of 18 May 91 15:42:25 GMT In article <1991May18.154225.2699@unlinfo.unl.edu> riddle@hoss.unl.edu (Michael H. Riddle) writes: Hayes does not appear to have tried to preclude anyone from using the technology; rather, posters more knowledgeable than I have characterized their license agreements as "reasonable." But it is irrelevant whether Hayes' licensing policy is "reasonable" or "unreasonable". Regardless of whether you believe that the patent is valid or not, granting rights to this "invention" to Hayes gives Hayes a definite advantage in the market place, be it because of their income from license fees, be it because they potentially have power to exclude competitors from making compatible modems (even if they don't usually exercise that power). What appears to be the case is that Hayes has a valid patent, no matter what some of us might wish to be the case, and that some individuals chose to attack it and lost. That's the way our system works. I'd still like to see informed technical discussion, such as one might expect to have been made before the patent examiner when the patent was first issued. Then maybe we'd have something to discuss besides our opinions. Hayes patent might currently be considered "valid" since it has been upheld in court. However, whether it is actually valid under current law is a different question, and laywers and technical experts disagree on this matter. I think the technical issues have actually been discussed at length in this and other newsgroups. There are a number of prior uses of "guard times" in communications equipment and software dating back to the 60's. Since the idea itself is much older than the patent, the only question that remains whether use of the idea in a modem is really substantially different from use of the idea in these other devices. The issue to me is also not whether Hayes patent is valid under current law or not. It may be, or (more likely), it may not be. The main issue is that the current procedures for obtaining and enforcing patents on software seem to be damaging to the computer and software industry. MIT has been involved in defending a number of patent infringement cases. In these cases, even though many people were aware of the existence of prior art, establishing this fact legally required enormous efforts by people who have better things to do, and significant expenses on the part of the defendants. At least in the area of software, the costs of the patent system to me clearly seem to outweigh its benefits. Thomas.