Path: utzoo!mnetor!uunet!seismo!sundc!pitstop!sun!decwrl!decvax!ima!johnl
From: johnl@ima.ISC.COM (John R. Levine)
Newsgroups: comp.sys.ibm.pc
Subject: Re: Another surreal lawsuit
Message-ID: <888@ima.ISC.COM>
Date: 19 Feb 88 03:24:01 GMT
References: <787@imsvax.UUCP>
Reply-To: johnl@ima.UUCP (John R. Levine)
Organization: Not enough to make any difference
Lines: 38

In article <787@imsvax.UUCP> bob@imsvax.UUCP (Bob Burch) writes:
> [about a ridiculous lawsuit from someone who claims to have invented and
> patented the idea of function keys in 1971.]

The patent claim is of course absurd, function keys having been in common
use in the 1960's.  It's quite possible that IBM was negotiating just because
it might have been cheaper to pay the guy off with a worthless license than
to fight a long dragged out patent fight.  Since they've since filed a
variety of nasty countersuits, it suggests the guy wasn't interested in any
reasonable license fee.

> And then, there's villain number three. IBM developed the dynamic memory
> setup scheme for the PS2 in-house and only after-the-fact did their lawyers
> discover the CA patent. I have no doubt that IBM could have gotten by with
> simply ignoring the entire business and not informing CA or anybody else of
> the possible patent infringement. ...

On the contrary, IBM would have been insane to make an umpteen hundred million
dollar investment in microchannel machines if there were a possibility that CA
could have gotten an injunction against them for patent infringement. More
likely IBM went to them and said, "We'd like a reasonable patent license, and
if you don't give us one, we'll redesign our machines to avoid your patent."
They may even have already had existing cross-license agreements, which have
been common in the computer industry since the original Eckert-Mauchly patents
in the late 40's.

The suggestion that it suits IBM's purposes to uphold dubious patents is an
interesting one, particularly considering the hoo-hah about Soderblom's token
ring patent (IBM negotiated a fixed fee of several million dollars, but he
wanted a large per-machine royalty from all others until the IEEE stated
they'd never standardize it until he came up with a more reasonable
arrangement.)

True facts about the IBM-CA patent license would be interesting.
-- 
John R. Levine, IECC, PO Box 349, Cambridge MA 02238-0349, +1 617 492 3869
{ ihnp4 | decvax | cbosgd | harvard | yale }!ima!johnl, Levine@YALE.something
Rome fell, Babylon fell, Scarsdale will have its turn.  -G. B. Shaw