Path: utzoo!telecom-request Date: 20 May 91 19:10:52 From: Charlie Mingo Newsgroups: comp.dcom.telecom Subject: Re: Hayes Wins Damages on its Command Set Patent Message-ID: Organization: TELECOM Digest 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 381, Message 4 of 10 Lines: 24 nanook@eskimo.celestial.com (Robert Dinse) writes: > [S]ince Hayes compatables > comprise nearly all consumer type modems, we are essentially all being > held hostage by Hayes, they, if successful in enforcing this patent, > have a complete monopoly on the field. > My feeling is that the Justice Department, gutted by Reagan and > Bush, really should be filing anti-trust suits against corporations > that participate in monopoly by litigation. The purpose of patent law is to grant a limited monopoly to the inventor of a new product or process. Every patent, therefore, creates a monopoly which would be illegal under the antitrust laws, except that patents are specifically excluded from antitrust prohibitions. Now if Hayes were attempting to enforce an invalid patent, or attempting to expand the scope of the patent beyond that granted by the government, it might be a different story. In this case, the patent is valid and, as a consequence, so is any monopoly created thereby.