Xref: utzoo gnu.misc.discuss:3245 comp.misc:12708 comp.dcom.modems:10038 Path: utzoo!utgpu!news-server.csri.toronto.edu!rpi!think.com!spool.mu.edu!cs.umn.edu!sialis!orbit!pnet51!kurt From: kurt@pnet51.orb.mn.org (Kurt Sletterdahl) Newsgroups: gnu.misc.discuss,comp.misc,comp.dcom.modems Subject: Re: hayes lawsuit Message-ID: <5002@orbit.cts.com> Date: 27 May 91 15:45:01 GMT Article-I.D.: orbit.5002 Sender: news@orbit.cts.com Organization: People-Net [pnet51], Minneapolis, MN. Lines: 27 I find it hard to blame Hayes for this suit, when the litigation was in fact initiated by the Modem Patent Defense Group in 1985. Yes, I think it was prudent for most of the Modem Patent Defense Group to settle prior to trial; rather than to lose a multi-million dollar suit for willful patent infringement and to be slapped with punitive damages and attorney fees. There is always a chance that the decision will be reversed on appeal, but the initial decision seemed to be very decisive. The modem marketplace is very competitive, and Hayes' nominal licensing fee has done nothing to change that fact. Since you hate Hayes so much, a fashionable position , make sure that the next modem that you buy is made by Practical Peripherals. IMHO, international competitiveness is dependant on invention and innovation; and the ability to take these and develop marketable products. (It seems all too often that the US makes the initial invention, and then abandons it to be developed into a marketable product by Japan.) Does Everex, for example, do much more than to cost effectively assemble parts that were invented elsewhere? I am not directly of indirectly associated with Hayes. UUCP: {amdahl!bungia, uunet!rosevax, crash}!orbit!pnet51!kurt ARPA: crash!orbit!pnet51!kurt@nosc.mil INET: kurt@pnet51.orb.mn.org