Xref: utzoo gnu.misc.discuss:3141 comp.misc:12604 comp.dcom.modems:9819 Path: utzoo!utgpu!news-server.csri.toronto.edu!rpi!think.com!zaphod.mps.ohio-state.edu!rphroy!caen!kuhub.cc.ukans.edu!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: <1991May19.123246.6857@unlinfo.unl.edu> Date: 19 May 91 12:32:46 GMT References: <1991May14.034600.7891@rfengr.com> <1991May18.091829.14936@umbc3.umbc.edu> <1991May18.102918.8003@beach.csulb.edu> <1991May18.154225.2699@unlinfo.unl.edu> Sender: news@unlinfo.unl.edu Distribution: usa Organization: University of Nebraska - Lincoln Lines: 28 Nntp-Posting-Host: hoss.unl.edu In tmb@ai.mit.edu (Thomas M. Breuel) writes: >But it is irrelevant whether Hayes' licensing policy is "reasonable" >or "unreasonable". Regardless of whether you believe that the patent >is valid or not, granting rights to this "invention" to Hayes gives >Hayes a definite advantage in the market place, be it because of their >income from license fees, be it because they potentially have power to >exclude competitors from making compatible modems (even if they >don't usually exercise that power). Excuse me? I thought that was the whole idea behind a patent. To reward the inventor. >The issue to me is also not whether Hayes patent is valid under >current law or not. It may be, or (more likely), it may not be. The >main issue is that the current procedures for obtaining and enforcing >patents on software seem to be damaging to the computer and software >industry. The Congress, not the courts, is the proper place to challenge the law. If enough congress.critters can be convinced, you can get the law changed to read the way you want it to read. -- <<<< 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