Xref: utzoo gnu.misc.discuss:3246 comp.misc:12709 comp.dcom.modems:10039 Path: utzoo!utgpu!news-server.csri.toronto.edu!rpi!usc!wuarchive!hsdndev!bu.edu!ai-lab!life.ai.mit.edu!petrilli From: petrilli@geech.gnu.ai.mit.edu (Chris Petrilli) Newsgroups: gnu.misc.discuss,comp.misc,comp.dcom.modems Subject: Re: hayes lawsuit Message-ID: Date: 27 May 91 19:39:03 GMT References: <5002@orbit.cts.com> Sender: news@ai.mit.edu Organization: The Free Software Foundation Lines: 57 In-reply-to: kurt@pnet51.orb.mn.org's message of 27 May 91 15:45:01 GMT Kurt Sletterdahl writes: 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 problem is that the people who settled seem to be admitting guilt, which, IMHO, is not true. The patent covers software, which I do not believe is patentable, hence my hatered for this and all softare lawsuits. 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. It is the idea of a licensing fee that bothers me... this is once again strengthening the precedent of software lawsuits. What if Hays decides taht they want a $40/modem fee for thier command set, which might be covered my another patent (lord only knows), then is it still OK? Hard to compete when you are paying $40 just in licensing fees, yet the hardware only costs $10 to make. 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? NO..NO..NO! This is the idealogy that has caused the current problems. Invention is not necessarily a GOOD THING. I have seen many inventions that are not worth the paper they are printed on. Isn't it better to improve than to re-invent. You must take a look at what is currently being done, and decide if it is good, rather than immediately throw it out because it's not new. Invention consumes alot of resources that could be directed toward refinement of ideas. Take Emacs for example... considered by MANY to be the BEST editor in the world, and yet it dates from the days of PDP-1s and TECO. Obviously re-invention is not necessarily the best way to make advances. I am not directly of indirectly associated with Hayes. I'de hope not... but you do seem to excuse them for what they've done. Chris -- | Chris Petrilli | petrilli@gnu.ai.mit.edu | I don't even speak for myself.