Xref: utzoo gnu.misc.discuss:3144 comp.misc:12606 comp.dcom.modems:9824 Path: utzoo!utgpu!news-server.csri.toronto.edu!rpi!usc!apple!rutgers!njin!uupsi!ficc!peter From: peter@ficc.ferranti.com (Peter da Silva) Newsgroups: gnu.misc.discuss,comp.misc,comp.dcom.modems Subject: Re: hayes lawsuit Message-ID: Date: 19 May 91 14:14:40 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> Reply-To: peter@ficc.ferranti.com (Peter da Silva) Distribution: usa Organization: Xenix Support, FICC Lines: 41 In article <1991May18.154225.2699@unlinfo.unl.edu> riddle@hoss.unl.edu (Michael H. Riddle) writes: > I've seen no technical > discussion from the "techies" to support the allegations that Hayes > shouldn't have received a patent on their invention. I have. Here are the relevant facts: Hayes original patent was on the hardware of their 300 baud modem. It was a clever piece of hackery, and unarguably deserved the patent. In this patent was a reference to the guard time escape sequence. A couple of years later, Hayes rewrote the patent. I don't know the mechanism of this, but the result was that the original ideas described in the abstract were relegated to second string, and a minor part of the interface spec became paramount. So, Hayes turned a valid hardware patent into a software patent, after establishing a standard based in part on a minor portion of the original patent. The whole legal basis of software patents itself is under lively discussion, since it is based on a decision that had little to do with the patenting of software per se, but was rather a decision that a patent that incorporated software would not be thrown out purely on that basis. > Their reasons are unknown, but speculations > suggests either economics or realization that the Hayes patent was valid. Economics, certainly. > 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. There has been plenty of informed technical discussion, with references to prior art. The problem is that what was originally patented is not what Hayes is now claiming. In another context this is known as "bait and switch". -- Peter da Silva; Ferranti International Controls Corporation; +1 713 274 5180; Sugar Land, TX 77487-5012; `-_-' "Have you hugged your wolf, today?"