Xref: utzoo gnu.misc.discuss:3143 comp.misc:12605 comp.dcom.modems:9823 Path: utzoo!utgpu!news-server.csri.toronto.edu!rpi!usc!apple!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 14:05:36 GMT References: Sender: news@ai.mit.edu Distribution: usa Organization: MIT Artificial Intelligence Lab Lines: 55 In-reply-to: riddle@hoss.unl.edu's message of 19 May 91 12:32:46 GMT In article <1991May19.123246.6857@unlinfo.unl.edu> riddle@hoss.unl.edu (Michael H. Riddle) writes: In tmb@ai.mit.edu (Thomas M. Breuel) writes: >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). Excuse me? I thought that was the whole idea behind a patent. To reward the inventor. Please don't change or confuse the issue, and please quote more carefully. Several people have argued that the "The Hayes patent doesn't matter since Hayes' licenses are 'reasonable'". I simply pointed out that that argument is not sensible. Hayes should keep their patent and "be rewarded" if and only if it is a valid patent under current law. >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. The Congress, not the courts, is the proper place to challenge the law. If enough congress.critters can be convinced, you can get the law changed to read the way you want it to read. You are quoting out of context again. All I am saying is that the "issue" we should discuss is what form of patent protection is the most appropriate for the computer industry; few people in this forum are qualified to address the other issue of whether Hayes' patent is actually valid under current law, and legal authorities themselves do not seem to have a unanimous opinion on this question. As far as challenging the law is concerned, the Hayes patent seems to fall into a grey area of the law. It is quite possible that under current law the patent is actually invalid, even if a lower court found it to be valid. Precedents may significantly affect the interpretation of the law in future cases, and the courts are very much the correct place to resolve such issues. Regardless of what the right place to resolve the question of the validity of the Hayes patent is, it serves as another reminder to me of how damaging to the industry awarding patents on trivial re-"inventions" like guard times for escape sequences can be. Anyone who would like to see a healthy and diverse software industry in the future should help work towards having the laws clarified and the procedures for patent approval streamlined and rationalized, in addition to trying to help establish legal precedents. Thomas.