Path: utzoo!telecom-request Date: Tue, 21 May 91 14:39:21 EDT From: andys@ulysses.att.com 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 386, Message 2 of 8 Lines: 65 In article is written: |> Since the timed escape is an essential part of the command set, |> it is impossible for a modem manufacturer to claim Hayes compatability |> without it. Thus, Hayes, if successful at enforcing this patent, has a |> monopoly on this kind of modem. Indeed, I can't think of a way you |> could escape from data mode to command mode not using a timed delay |> and some unique sequence, that wouldn't be possibly contained in |> transmitted data. |> The ability to escape from data mode to command mode is essential |> in a smart modems operation. The ability to do that in a way that |> guarantees that escape to command mode won't accidentally be invoked |> by the data stream would be difficult (I can't think of a way) without |> timing and a unique string being an essential feature of the escape |> from data mode. |> This type of BS really torques me. I have one Hayes modem and |> nine clones here, I will not buy another Hayes product. |> Not only must modem manufacturers figure this as a cost they have |> to figure in, but so must consumers. And since 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 monpoly by litigation. You really ought to talk to somebody who knows a little anti-trust law and intellectual property law (which you *CLEARLY* do not) before you make such wild and irresponsible statements. Seeking patent protection for an invention has never been considered anti-competitive behavior. Why have a patent office if you prosecute everybody who uses it? Hayes invested the R&D dollars into developing an essential technology for the implementation of smart asynchronous modems and now will get a return on their investment. This is wrong? Tell me, does celestial.com (whatever that is) give away its assets? If so, I will watch for your Chapter 11 filing, since you won't be in business very long. TI gets royalties from nearly everybody manufacturing integrated circuits (although a lot of the basic US patents are probably due to expire) including the Japanese. They didn't do every single chip design, but they did invent the enabling technology, and are getting paid for it. The Hayes patent is no different. Enforcing patents, and deciding who may and may not license your patents is not a matter of restraint of trade under current anti-trust case law. This is not a lack of vigilance by our current fascist government, it's the way anti-trust law and patent law have intersected for a long time. Patent protection usually enables publication of technology, since the inventor is given something in return for publishing the patent. Go talk to somebody who knows about such things. You don't. Andy Sherman/AT&T Bell Laboratories/Murray Hill, NJ AUDIBLE: (908) 582-5928 READABLE: andys@ulysses.att.com or att!ulysses!andys What? Me speak for AT&T? You must be joking!