Path: utzoo!telecom-request Date: Fri, 17 May 1991 08:03:42 GMT From: "Michael H. Riddle" Newsgroups: comp.dcom.telecom Subject: Re: Hayes Wins Damages on its Command Set Patent Message-ID: Organization: University of Nebraska - Lincoln 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 371, Message 1 of 8 Lines: 67 In fulk@cs.rochester.edu (Mark Fulk) writes: > Others have made some good points about overbreadth of the patent, and > prior art. > I am bothered by another aspect: triviality. My three year old son > has more complicated and better ideas every day. If the Hayes patent > holds water, I'm going to patent the phrase "excuse me" in its use to > interrupt a conversation. > Seriously, a patent should only be granted if the invention solves a > problem that many have found difficult, or if the new solution is not > trivial to find and offers significant advantages over older methods. [My comments are not particularly directed to Mark; rather, his was the post to which I replied for convenience.] I'm just a little surprised at the tone and direction most of the comments have taken, just as I'm a little surprised by Toby Nixon's silence. Perhaps the company has not allowed him to say anything, although I'd think an approved press release might be available and, if so, would certainly help clear the air. (If I missed one you posted Toby, then I apologize. I know you try hard.) Some points need to be made: a. The Patent and Trademark Office issued the patent. b. While the PTO isn't infallible, their acts get a presumption of validity. They have the job, not you or I. c. The PTO obviously felt the Hayes application met the requirements. d. A number of modem vendors agreed, or decided licensing was easier and cheaper than a patent challenge. My understanding is that quite a number of them went the licensing route, and that even more are holding discussions with Hayes. e. A relative few companies decided to challenge the PTO decision in court, and they lost. The courts, after complete briefing and arguments, agreed with Hayes and the PTO. Personal reaction: some of the simplest and most useful inventions seem obvious /after/ invention: paper clips and rubber bands would be good examples. Yet, /before/ the invention, they were unique and nonobvious. Sometimes what may be involved is the practical method of manufacture, or some other intermediate step that is not obvious or easy to implement. The point is that Hayes has an obviously defensible patent, one which patent lawyers for a number of companies have been unable (so far) to overturn and which even more patent lawyers have felt valid enough to have their clients license the technology. We need to keep this in mind. <<<< insert standard disclaimer here >>>> riddle@hoss.unl.edu | University of Nebraska ivgate!inns!postmaster@uunet.uu.net | College of Law mike.riddle@f27.n285.z1.fidonet.org | Lincoln, Nebraska, USA [Moderator's Note: Actually, Toby Nixon did send a good response to te Digest on this. Perhaps you are behind in your reading? PAT]