Xref: utzoo gnu.misc.discuss:3249 comp.misc:12712 comp.dcom.modems:10043 misc.legal:26377 Path: utzoo!utgpu!news-server.csri.toronto.edu!rpi!think.com!mintaka!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,misc.legal Subject: Re: hayes lawsuit Message-ID: Date: 27 May 91 22:55:46 GMT References: <5002@orbit.cts.com> <1991May27.214827.17614@unlinfo.unl.edu> Sender: news@ai.mit.edu Distribution: usa Organization: The Free Software Foundation Lines: 46 In-reply-to: ivgate!inns!mike.riddle@uunet.uu.net's message of 27 May 91 21:48:27 GMT Mike Riddle writes: Chris Petrilli writes: >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. Well, I can understand your policy argument, but the Patent and Trademark Office has in fact been issuing software patents for at least a few years now. Whether you or I agree with the policy, Hayes has a duty to its owners to preserve its legal rights. It is this policy however that is based on legally shakey ground. The entire policy of the PTO is based on _Diamond v. Deihr_, which did not specifically permit software patents, but on the other hand did not invalidate a patent becuase a small part of it included softare. The exact decision was that 'the use of a program in the process is not enough to render the patent nullified.' This does not say software is patentable, but that software, by itself does not cause a patent to be invalidated. (See CACM, August 1990). Your argument is best addressed at the PTO or Congress. Given that, note that the PTO this very month issued a request for public comments on this area. I have sent various letters to both the PTO and Congress (my reps), but have not received a response of any sort (what representation of the public!). I will continue to persist, but I do not believe that the Congress or PTO are qualified to make a decision on software. Polls have shown that roughly 90% of all programs do not belive patents are in the best interest of the industry, it is the accounting department that wants the patent. I would recommend that /anyone/ with thoughts on this subject respond to the PTO. This is a much more productive method than (as some have done) blaming Hayes for pursing its legal options. Agreed. Chris -- | Chris Petrilli | petrilli@gnu.ai.mit.edu | I don't even speak for myself.