kevin@calvin.EE.CORNELL.EDU (Kevin Tubbs) (03/30/88)
With all this talk about the look and feel of software, I was wondering
why Hayes never sued (as far as I know) over the many openly "Hayes-
compatible" modems on the market. How does the command set of a modem
differ from the "command set" of any other program, such as windowing
software?
---
Kevin Tubbs, 5152 Upson, Cornell University, Ithaca NY, 14853 (607) 255-8703
kevin@calvin.ee.cornell.edu {ihnp4,uunet,rochester}!cornell!calvin!kevin
"If you took all the after-dinner speakers that ever were, and laid them end-
to-end at the equator, it would be a good thing."peter@athena.mit.edu (Peter J Desnoyers) (03/31/88)
In article <252@calvin.EE.CORNELL.EDU> kevin@calvin.EE.CORNELL.EDU (Kevin Tubbs) writes: >With all this talk about the look and feel of software, I was wondering >why Hayes never sued (as far as I know) over the many openly "Hayes- >compatible" modems on the market. How does the command set of a modem >differ from the "command set" of any other program, such as windowing >software? >--- >Kevin Tubbs, 5152 Upson, Cornell University, Ithaca NY, 14853 (607) 255-8703 >kevin@calvin.ee.cornell.edu {ihnp4,uunet,rochester}!cornell!calvin!kevin The last I heard, Hayes was going around filing suit against the smallest companies that were imitating their command set. (This was last fall.) What is interesting is that the infringement these companies were being charged with was the progamable guard time feature, surely a minor part of the whole setup. (Maybe because the rest has become a de facto standard, and therefore arguably public domain; there is even an effort to standardize the AT command set so that Hayes can't change it out from under everyone else.) Peter Desnoyers
jcc@ut-emx.UUCP (J. Chris Cooley) (03/31/88)
In article <252@calvin.EE.CORNELL.EDU>, kevin@calvin.EE.CORNELL.EDU (Kevin Tubbs) writes: > With all this talk about the look and feel of software, I was wondering > why Hayes never sued (as far as I know) over the many openly "Hayes- > compatible" modems on the market. The "Hayes" command set was developed by Bizcomp, Corp., and then bought by Hayes. Anyway, Hayes is the legal owner of it, now. Companies who wish to use the Hayes command set must sign a pricey license with Hayes. One of the suits that went to court was the manufacturer U.S. Robotics, who felt that the license fee (and even the idea of it) was too much. They lost and now are paying Hayes like everyone else. > How does the command set of a modem differ from the "command set" > of any other program, such as windowing software? It doesn't. And Hayes owns the AT command set. --chris
brad@looking.UUCP (Brad Templeton) (03/31/88)
In article <252@calvin.EE.CORNELL.EDU> kevin@calvin.EE.CORNELL.EDU (Kevin Tubbs) writes: >With all this talk about the look and feel of software, I was wondering >why Hayes never sued (as far as I know) over the many openly "Hayes- >compatible" modems on the market. Hayes possibly regrets this now, but at the time, it was a good idea to let this take place. By allowing it, Hayes arranged for their system to become the standard, which assures their position as a market leader. Hayes started small, remember. If you're small you sometimes want to be copied. When you're big, you don't. What HAYES should have done was extract a nominal fee for use of their design, as the makers of the MNP protocol are doing. -- Brad Templeton, Looking Glass Software Ltd. - Waterloo, Ontario 519/884-7473
Prodas@cup.portal.com (03/31/88)
Hayes does sue everyone but they all settle for giving Hayes a royalty.
dhesi@bsu-cs.UUCP (Rahul Dhesi) (03/31/88)
In article <1495@ut-emx.UUCP> jcc@ut-emx.UUCP (J. Chris Cooley) writes: >And Hayes owns the AT command set. This contradicts what I have read in the popular press. My understanding is that Bizcomp claims to have invented the idea of having a guard time before and after the +++ escape sequence. The presence of the guard time allows the escape sequence to be in-band without being triggered by data. Hayes has some kind of agreement with Bizcomp to use this. I doubt that anybody actually owns the AT command set itself. -- Rahul Dhesi UUCP: <backbones>!{iuvax,pur-ee,uunet}!bsu-cs!dhesi
todd@uhccux.UUCP (Todd Ogasawara) (04/01/88)
In article <252@calvin.EE.CORNELL.EDU> kevin@calvin.EE.CORNELL.EDU (Kevin Tubbs) writes: >With all this talk about the look and feel of software, I was wondering >why Hayes never sued (as far as I know) over the many openly "Hayes- >compatible" modems on the market. How does the command set of a modem >differ from the "command set" of any other program, such as windowing >software? Such a suit did occur. It turns out that Hayes didn't create the "standard" modem command set; Bizcomp did. In fact, I was extremely amused today after looking at the HP 2400 baud internal modem board for their HP Vectra lap portable. There were three chips on it clearly marked "Hayes" and a label on the other side declaring the board "licensed from Bizcomp." -- Todd Ogasawara, U. of Hawaii Faculty Development Program UUCP: {ihnp4,uunet,ucbvax,dcdwest}!ucsd!nosc!uhccux!todd ARPA: uhccux!todd@nosc.MIL BITNET: todd@uhccux INTERNET: todd@uhccux.UHCC.HAWAII.EDU
wtm@neoucom.UUCP (Bill Mayhew) (04/03/88)
Hayes has indeed sucessfully prosecuted several companies fro copying the smartmodem's AT command set. That is why, I suppose, all the Hayes clone modems have those annouying slight differences in their command sets. Hayes can protect its command set since it is not a programming language. Adobe learned about that when they called Post Script a "language" in their own literature. Copyright can not be obtained for a language. One just can't name one's knock-off "Post Script". --Bill
amlovell@phoenix.Princeton.EDU (Anthony M Lovell) (04/05/88)
Has anyone noticed that oftimes even "respectable" manufacturers who produce Hayes compatible modems are not too closely compatible? We (at your regular shoestring University research group) have made rigs of Compaq machines with either Hayes or Leading Edge internal modems and we almost ALWAYS wind up pulling our hair out over the tiny differences between these animals! For instance, ATA in one enables auto-answer, while in the other it causes the phone to be taken off-hook immediately irregardless of whether the phone is ringing. OOOH I HATE when this happens. -- amlovell@phoenix.princeton.edu ...since 1963. disclaimer: These are MY opinions. You only WISH they were yours.