Path: utzoo!attcan!utgpu!jarvis.csri.toronto.edu!rutgers!ucsd!helios.ee.lbl.gov!ux3.lbl.gov!rlfink
From: rlfink@ux3.lbl.gov (Robert Fink)
Newsgroups: comp.protocols.tcp-ip
Subject: Re:  FDDI/Soderblom answer
Message-ID: <2649@helios.ee.lbl.gov>
Date: 15 May 89 14:53:06 GMT
References: <8905121242.aa11749@huey.udel.edu>
Sender: usenet@helios.ee.lbl.gov
Reply-To: rlfink@ux3.lbl.gov (Robert Fink)
Organization: Lawrence Berkeley Laboratory, Berkeley
Lines: 15


Dave,

I asked one of the FDDI committee folk about the issue of who pays licenses on
the patent relative to FDDI.  His answer was that it is the end equipment
manufacturer (board, router, bridge) that uses FDDI that would pay Soderblom,
which is why AMD has not (he thinks) paid any license fees (they are not
the end equipment supplier).  In addition, the value of the system as a
base for the fees has been ignored in the industry as a whole as unrealistic.

Also, whether Soderblom should/will be paid anything depends on legal issues
not yet addressed in courts.  It has been easier for many to simply pay than
worry about the larger cost of fighting.  This may not remain the case.

Bob Fink