Path: utzoo!telecom-request Date: 23 May 91 03:16:55 GMT From: nanook@eskimo.celestial.com (Robert Dinse) Newsgroups: comp.dcom.telecom Subject: Re: Hayes Wins Damages on its Command Set Patent Message-ID: Organization: ESKIMO NORTH (206) 367-3837 SEATTLE WA. 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 391, Message 2 of 5 Lines: 32 Several points: Regarding XON/XOFF - When is the last time you tried to use this with UUCP? If you have, then you would know why that is not a workable scheme. Indeed, when you don't know what data is going to be transmitted over a link, there is no way to guarantee any particular stream of data will be unique. In regards to the old schemes that used a seperate dialer, with two serial ports, or if you rely on control lines to signal an escape to command mode, yes then there are alternatives. But there are computers that have neither of those options available to them (mostly low end machines). Of the schemes that did allow escape from data mode to command mode with a single port, with no control line intervention, and without break, only using ASCII data, because that is all some systems can generate, what other options are available? The other problem I have with Hayes is philosophical. It's one thing to patent a paper clip, it's quite another to patent >ANY< method of binding loose papers together. If Hayes had patented say using a pause of some defined value, followed specifically by '+++' followed by another pause that would be one thing, quite different from patenting ANY time delay followed by ANY unique character string followed by another time delay. Also, if Hayes had enforced this from the beginning >BEFORE< it had become an accepted standard I'd have different feelings about it. But I feel waiting until now, until everybody is using it is slimey at best.