Path: utzoo!utgpu!news-server.csri.toronto.edu!rpi!dali.cs.montana.edu!uakari.primate.wisc.edu!zaphod.mps.ohio-state.edu!wuarchive!uunet!news.uu.net!kentrox!kentrox.uucp!bud From: bud@kentrox.uucp (Bud Couch) Newsgroups: comp.dcom.modems Subject: Re: hayes lawsuit Message-ID: <1991May21.182547.21091@kentrox.uucp> Date: 21 May 91 18:25:47 GMT Sender: bud@kentrox.uucp (Bud Couch) Organization: Kentrox Industries, Inc. Lines: 28 In article <1991May21.172118.22744@kithrup.COM> sef@kithrup.COM (Sean Eric Fagan) writes: >In article burley@mole.gnu.ai.mit.edu (Craig Burley) writes: >>Agreed. Which is why I don't think any interface, per se, should be >>patentable, i.e. any interface where the existence of the interface in a >>product by definition means it is "published". > >(Devil's advocate mode) >Ah, but if I spend millions of dollars researching and developing a >wonderful user interface, and someone can just "knock off" a clone of it, >why should I bother with doing the research at all? (Incidently, this is >why UI copyrights are even worse than patents.) > I interpreted his use of the word "interface" to mean _machine to machine_ interfaces, not _screen and keyboard_ interfaces. This makes somewhat sense, inasmuch as someone *else* (besides the patent) holder must write code and modify equipment to meet the interface. In other words, the patent is useless without other's efforts. I'm not sure if this is a panacea, but I do agree, especially with "standards" efforts. It galls me no end that standards bodies have written and issued "standards" which require that users of these "standards" fork over royalty payments to some patent holder. -- ################################################# Bud Couch - ADC/Kentrox | And diff'ring judments serve but to declare | If my employer only knew... |That truth lies somewhere, if we knew but where| standard BS applies | -William Cowper |