Relay-Version: version B 2.10 5/3/83; site utzoo.UUCP
Path: utzoo!mnetor!seismo!columbia!rutgers!ames!oliveb!pyramid!voder!apple!baum
From: baum@apple.UUCP (Allen J. Baum)
Newsgroups: comp.arch,comp.sys.nsc.32k
Subject: Re: NS32532 Patents
Message-ID: <642@apple.UUCP>
Date: Mon, 20-Apr-87 18:52:33 EST
Article-I.D.: apple.642
Posted: Mon Apr 20 18:52:33 1987
Date-Received: Tue, 21-Apr-87 23:57:13 EST
References: <4206@nsc.nsc.com> <863@oakhill.UUCP> <4219@nsc.nsc.com>
Reply-To: baum@apple.UUCP (Allen Baum)
Organization: Apple Computer, Inc.
Lines: 14
Xref: mnetor comp.arch:1025 comp.sys.nsc.32k:95

--------
[]

I think the argument about whether National has something that is innovative
or patentable is not a question that can be answered by examining the claims
in some marketing literature. Obviously, products have been delivered and
patented that have all of the features claimed- but that doesn't mean that
National did it the same way they did, or that National didn't do it in a way
that has much better price/performance or functionality.

What National has patent applications for doesn't have to be something that
hasn't been done before, or even something better than has been done before;
it only has to do it in a different manner.
--
{decwrl,hplabs,ihnp4}!nsc!apple!baum		(408)973-3385