Xref: utzoo gnu.misc.discuss:3134 comp.misc:12596 comp.dcom.modems:9806 Path: utzoo!utgpu!news-server.csri.toronto.edu!rpi!usc!cs.utexas.edu!rutgers!maverick.ksu.ksu.edu!unlinfo.unl.edu!hoss!riddle From: riddle@hoss.unl.edu (Michael H. Riddle) Newsgroups: gnu.misc.discuss,comp.misc,comp.dcom.modems Subject: Re: hayes lawsuit Message-ID: <1991May18.154225.2699@unlinfo.unl.edu> Date: 18 May 91 15:42:25 GMT References: <1991May14.034600.7891@rfengr.com> <1991May18.091829.14936@umbc3.umbc.edu> <1991May18.102918.8003@beach.csulb.edu> Sender: news@unlinfo.unl.edu Distribution: usa Organization: University of Nebraska - Lincoln Lines: 67 Nntp-Posting-Host: hoss.unl.edu In <1991May18.102918.8003@beach.csulb.edu> sichermn@beach.csulb.edu (Jeff Sicherman) writes: >In article <1991May18.091829.14936@umbc3.umbc.edu> ac999321@umbc5.umbc.edu (ac999321) writes: >>Too bad that there is no law that requires judges and lawyers to have >>appropriate technical knowlege (along with a reasonable IQ and good >>common sense) that pertains to any cases of a technical nature, that they >>might be required to get involved with, before they are allowed to get >>involved with it; the same for any politicians who would attempt to pass >>any laws which deal with technical matters, or other matters which they >>have no thorough understanding of. Unfortunately, we have a lot of laws >>being passed, and court decisions being made, by those who have not the >>adequate knowledge to do so. However, as long as these types of people, >>who often despise what they nastily refer to as "techies", remain in >>control of the government, the same types of mistakes will continue to >>be made. >>-- > There is probably much truth in this. However, it's also too bad that >there is no law that requires engineers and other techies to have some >appropriate legal training before they decide that their technical >training, IQ's and common sense (?) qualify them to pass sweeping >judgments on matters of law and judicial procedure without knowing >the details of the case at hand, the legal principles involved, and >the presentation to the court. >Jeff Sicherman >a 'techie' As both a graduate JD and a "techie," there's much to be said on both sides. What has been completely missing from this discussion is what may be patented and why. The Constitution allows Congress to authorize patents for "securing for limited Times to Authors and Inventors the exclusive Right to their respective Writings and Discoveries." U.S. Const. Art I, Sec. 8, Cl. 8. The patent laws try to make some tradeoffs between compensating the intellectual endeavors required for useful and new inventions, and the economic advantage of the unfettered marketplace. I've seen no technical discussion from the "techies" to support the allegations that Hayes shouldn't have received a patent on their invention. To the contrary, remember the "posture of the case." Hayes was the defendant. Several modem manufacturers brought suit to challenge the validity of the Hayes patent and lost. Many other vendors, for whatever reasons, chose to license rather than fight. Their reasons are unknown, but speculations suggests either economics or realization that the Hayes patent was valid. Hayes does not appear to have tried to preclude anyone from using the technology; rather, posters more knowledgeable than I have characterized their license agreements as "reasonable." What appears to be the case is that Hayes has a valid patent, no matter what some of us might wish to be the case, and that some individuals chose to attack it and lost. That's the way our system works. I'd still like to see informed technical discussion, such as one might expect to have been made before the patent examiner when the patent was first issued. Then maybe we'd have something to discuss besides our opinions. -- <<<< insert standard disclaimer here >>>> riddle@hoss.unl.edu | Nebraska Inns of Court ivgate!inns!postmaster@uunet.uu.net | +1 402 593 1192 Sysop of 1:285/27@Fidonet | 3/12/24/9600/8N1/V.32/V.42bis