Xref: utzoo gnu.misc.discuss:3221 comp.misc:12678 comp.dcom.modems:9965 Path: utzoo!utgpu!news-server.csri.toronto.edu!rpi!usc!cs.utexas.edu!uunet!mnemosyne.cs.du.edu!isis.cs.du.edu!jsharp From: jsharp@isis.cs.du.edu (Joe Sharp) Newsgroups: gnu.misc.discuss,comp.misc,comp.dcom.modems Subject: Re: hayes lawsuit Message-ID: <1991May24.035016.13723@mnemosyne.cs.du.edu> Date: 24 May 91 03:50:16 GMT References: <4913@orbit.cts.com> <9BDBC58@xds13.ferranti.com> <1991May17.222410.26944@MDI.COM> Sender: usenet@mnemosyne.cs.du.edu (netnews admin account) Reply-To: jsharp@isis.cs.du.edu (Joe Sharp) Followup-To: comp.dcom.modems Organization: Nyx, Public Access Unix (sponsored by U. of Denver Math/CS dept.) Lines: 19 Disclaimer1: Nyx is a public access Unix system run by the University of Disclaimer2: Denver for the Denver community. The University has neither Disclaimer3: control over nor responsibility for the opinions of users. I've been following this thread with interest the last few days. Theres been a lot of discussion over the validity of the patent, use of patent for monopoly, etc, but I haven't seen any news about what Everex, et al are doing about it. Are they throwing in the towel or are they appealing? Is Multitech settling or are they going ahead, despite the precedent? In comp.dcom.telecoms, the guy from Hayes is claiming that a lot of companies are now lining up to license the +++ 'technology'. Is this true? I'm not familiar with the actual details of the case, but the Hayes press release seem to indicate that the Judge threw the book at Everex et al. Did they really have such a bad case? or did they just get a non technical judge who may not fully understand the complexity, simplicity, or possible non-validity of the patent? Perhaps someone who is familiar with the case (other than Hayes Toby Nixon) could comment. Joe Sharp jsharp@isis.cs.du.edu