Path: utzoo!utgpu!jarvis.csri.toronto.edu!rutgers!tut.cis.ohio-state.edu!ucbvax!RELAY.PROTEON.COM!hs
From: hs@RELAY.PROTEON.COM
Newsgroups: comp.protocols.tcp-ip
Subject: Token Ring Patent
Message-ID: <8905171829.AA13865@monk.proteon.com>
Date: 17 May 89 19:20:00 GMT
Sender: daemon@ucbvax.BERKELEY.EDU
Organization: Proteon, Inc., Westborough, MA  01581  [(508)898-2800]
Lines: 49


          Unfortunately, I know quite a bit about the Soderblom
          patent. It was first issued in the fall of 1981 after much
          consideration at the Patent Office. The senior patent in
          this area is Farmer and Newhall (AT&T). During the '70's,
          there were several interferences between the claims of
          Soderblom and those of Farmer and Newhall.  The Farmer and
          Newhall design, patented in 1971, was used by Dave Farber to
          help in the creation of the UC Irvine Ring (If I'm wrong,
          Dave, Please correct me). Then, Jerry Saltzer, Dave Clark,
          Ken Pogren and a bunch of people here at Proteon used the UC
          Irvine Ring to help in the creation of ProNET-10.

          Proteon never expected patent problems. In fact, in 1982, I
          presented details of our design at IEEE Headquarters in NYC
          to many AT&T employees including Bob Lucky. We joked about
          the fact that I was using BSTJ figures for my presentation,
          thus bringing new meaning to the phrase "not invented here".
          The Soderblom patent applied to systems which consisted of a
          master and a plurality of terminals. Farmer and Newhall was
          the senior patent when it came to closed loop operations.

          In 1983 or maybe 84, Soderblom presented at IEEE802.5. We
          were well aware of the Soderblom position. IEEE staff were
          also involved. We went ahead on the basis that Soderblom
          would provide licenses in a nondiscriminatory way. We also
          had a good idea of the probable terms for such a license.

          Since that time, the Patent Office has allowed a reissue of
          the Soderblom patent. The reissue has much more general
          claims. Many organizations filed objections which were
          brushed aside by the patent Office. That's why he has
          general coverage of a 1967 idea until 1998. His patents have
          run out elsewhere in the world. Don't blame Olaf.

          Many of us object to the whole procedure. That is, Was the
          token ring a new concept or an" old combination" in 1967?
          Many of us object to the details of the legal rangling.
          Nonetheless many of us have signed up simply because the
          patent office has spoken. In all cases, the exact terms of
          the license are covered by a non disclosure clause.

          It is also clear that some have chosen not to sign a
          license with Soberblom. It is expected that someone will
          take this to court for resolution.  Time will tell.

          Howard Salwen, Chairman-Founder
          Proteon, Inc.
          hs@relay.proteon.com