mithomas@bsu-cs.bsu.edu (Michael Thomas Niehaus) (03/15/90)
Does anyone have any idea as to just what this patent might cover? Seems
interesting:
FARALLON AWARDED U.S. PATENT NUMBER 4,901,342 FOR PHONENET CONNECTOR TECHNOLOGY
Emeryville, CA-March 12, 1990--Farallon Computing, Inc., today announced
the company recently received United States patent number 4,901,342 for its
PhoneNET connector technology. Farallon's PhoneNET connector was the first
device that allowed users to network computers over existing telephone wires.
The patent applies to Farallon's PhoneNET connector and StarConnector*
technology.
Farallon is currently negotiating licensing agreements with several
manufacturers of connecting devices that use telephone wires to network
computers.
...
"Farallon is interested in licensing the technology under this patent to
qualified third parties," said Pat OUHaren, FarallonUs manager of OEM sales.
"PhoneNET is the cornerstone of all of Farallon's connectivity products. We
are interested in making this technology available to help solve people's
connectivity problems."
--
Michael Niehaus UUCP: <backbones>!{iuvax,pur-ee}!bsu-cs!mithomas
Apple Student Rep ARPA: mithomas@bsu-cs.bsu.edu
Ball State University AppleLink: ST0374 (from UUCP: st0374@applelink.apple.com)derosa@cell.mot.COM (John DeRosa) (03/16/90)
mithomas@bsu-cs.bsu.edu (Michael Thomas Niehaus) writes: >FARALLON AWARDED U.S. PATENT NUMBER 4,901,342 FOR PHONENET CONNECTOR TECHNOLOGY > I can just see it now. Farallon will kill all the phonenet clones and raise prices. =-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-= = John DeRosa, Motorola, Inc, Cellular Infrastructure Division = = e-mail: ...uunet!motcid!derosaj = = I do not hold by employer responsible for any information in this message = = nor am I responsible for anything my employer may do or say. = =-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=
jordan@Apple.COM (Jordan Mattson) (03/16/90)
Dear Friend - If you had read the rest of the message, you would have seen that they were going to license the patents to interested parties. And what is wrong with people making money off of their skull sweat....I just don't understand the attitude that says it is wrong to invent something and then protect that invention. -- Jordan Mattson UUCP: jordan@apple.apple.com Apple Computer, Inc. CSNET: jordan@apple.CSNET Development Tools Product Management AppleLink: Mattson1 20525 Mariani Avenue, MS 27S Cupertino, CA 95014 408-974-4601 "Joy is the serious business of heaven." C.S. Lewis
derosa@cell.mot.COM (John DeRosa) (03/16/90)
jordan@Apple.COM (Jordan Mattson) writes: >Dear Friend - > If you had read the rest of the message, you would have seen that they >were going to license the patents to interested parties. And what is >wrong with people making money off of their skull sweat....I just don't >understand the attitude that says it is wrong to invent something and >then protect that invention. The following is a flame: The point is that they have had phonenet out for many moons, have let the clones do their thing and now are lowering the boom. I am all for patent protection but Farrallon should have made it clear to the clones that the patent was forthcoming. I predict that several small companies will probable go belly up because of this or (and this is certain) the price of the clones will go up (because of the licensing fees) AND Farrallon will raise their prices OR keep them steady for an extended period or time. The benefits of patents are the incentive to develop new products. The detrement is that only one company can produce the product and can force inflated pricing on the public (look at the Mac). The benefits of freely licensing patents can be seen by the rapid takeover of the computer market by MS-DOS machines. OF couse, the down side of this is that MS-DOS development has produced a non-standardized interface and a stagnant architecture while Macs have shown the way to the future. After saying all this I am unsure if this was a flame or an agreement, you figure it out. I suppose this is just discussion.
minich@a.cs.okstate.edu (MINICH ROBERT JOHN) (03/20/90)
jordan@Apple.COM (Jordan Mattson) writes: + Dear Friend - + ...they were [are] going to license the patents to interested parties. + And what is wrong with people making money off of their skull sweat.... Nothing, if it's really sweat and NOT fly's wiz. (Read on, folks.) From article <1699@diamond2.UUCP>, by derosa@cell.mot.COM (John DeRosa): } The following is a flame: } The point is that they have had phonenet out for many moons, have let } the clones do their thing and now are lowering the boom. [...] One thing Apple has NOT done. Thanks, Apple. (sort of) } I predict that several small companies will probable go belly up } because of this or (and this is certain) the price of the clones } will go up (because of the licensing fees) AND Farrallon will } raise their prices OR keep them steady for an extended period } or time. [...] Ok, can we say overreaction? If this sends anyone belly up, either Farallon will get NONE of my business (for being greedy -- now if someone would let me NOT buy Apple :-) or those companies aren't really any big loss. I'd hate to depend on a single product the likes of PhoneNet style connectors for the entire purpose-in-life of a businness. I think there are a couple really interesting points on this phonenet patent BS. First off, I remember reading something written not long after Apple came out with AppleTalk (back when Apple == LocalTalk + AppleTalk) that discussed how you could build yourself network cabling with modular phone parts. It was sent out to BBSdom. (I assume, since I found it on one :-) Now, I don't think the original author claimed any rights to the ideas in the document, but he did say something to the effect of "...and some companaies will probably start making these anytime now, so you won't have to make them yourself. ..." So, IMHO I completely believe that Farallon is doing something immoral by taking an idea WHICH IT DID NOT CREATE.* In fact, I think they are a bunch of turkeys for even going after a patent. (Well, if the licensing is free [yeah right] then I take this back.) I guess I could come out with a keyboard cable extender for the Plus and earlier with modular phone parts and sue anyone who happens to make something similiar (Kensington?), right? Hell, it's not any incredibly bright idea we're talking about here! Leave it in the public domain. Back to the above mentioned document: The most interesting part of the whole thing is that it explained what incredibly HORRID decisions Apple made in it's choice of a cabling system. Apparently, LocalTalk is not A class workmanship for a half decent EE. Oh well. If anyone knows the article I'm talking about, PLEASE post it. If I can dig it up somewhere, I'll send it along. Unfortunately, I have find that specific BBS first. :-(
minich@a.cs.okstate.edu (MINICH ROBERT JOHN) (03/20/90)
WOOOOPS, almost forgot this sucker.... DISCLAIMER: Just lil ole me talking. If you have to sue, sue Apple. They can afford to defend themselves (legally). Of course, OK State U would not even admit I exist. (Except for tuition, of course!) AMIABLE DISCLAIMER: A nice person who steals floppies. (Read it again if...) Robert Minich Oklahoma State University minich@a.cs.okstate.edu
Doug.Farrow@p12.f22.n282.z1.FIDONET.ORG (Doug Farrow) (03/21/90)
derosa@cell.mot.COM (John DeRosa) wrote on 16 Mar 90 re the recently announced Farallon patent: >The point is that they have had phonenet out for many moons, have let >the clones do their thing and now are lowering the boom. I am all >for patent protection but Farrallon should have made it clear to >the clones that the patent was forthcoming. A quick look at a handy PhoneNet connector reveals the notation "Patent Pending". This is indeed notice to all that a patent application is in the works and to beware. The clone makers undertook development at their own risk. Because of the backlog at the US Patent & Trademark Office, the timing was most probably not of Farallon's doing. Incidentally, whem it came out, Farallon's pricing (and technical capability of the equipment) was a substantial improvement over Apple's cabling scheme. -- Doug Farrow - via FidoNet node 1:282/33 UUCP: ...!uunet!imagery!22.12!Doug.Farrow ARPA: Doug.Farrow@p12.f22.n282.z1.FIDONET.ORG
dan_butzer@rugby.cis.ohio-state.edu (03/21/90)
> >the clones that the patent was forthcoming. > >A quick look at a handy PhoneNet connector reveals the notation "Patent Pending". This is indeed notice to all that a patent application is in the works and to beware. The clone makers undertook development at their own risk. Because of the backlog at the US Patent & Trademark Office, the timing was most probably not of Farallon's doing. Incidentally, whem it came out, Farallon's pricing (and technical capability of the equipment) was a substantial improvement over Apple's cabling scheme. You hit the nail on the HEAD! A year ago we pulled out a 150 node appletalk internet and replaced it all with Farallon Phone-Net. I won't say what was installed previously but it was ALWAYS failing. We looked at some of the cheaper Phone-Net clones and found the workmanship of Farralon made Farallon worth the extra bucks. To be honest I hope they impose very strick quality control requirements on licensees that have yet to improve quality. BTW, I can count the Phone-Net failures in the last year on 1 hand. We used to see that many in a week with the old stuff. A very satisfied customer .... --Dan (standard disclaimers) -=- Dan Butzer || butzer@cis.ohio-state.edu IICF/CIS Hardware Support || voice: 614-292-7350 fax: 614-292-9021 "Fire in the hole..." || 2036 Neil Ave, Columbus OH 43210
roy@phri.nyu.edu (Roy Smith) (03/22/90)
It never fails to amaze me how people on the net seem to think that
it is somehow an evil thing that companies make money, even lots of money,
and that they protect their source of income by licenses, copyrights, and
patents. If Farallon invented a better way to let Macs talk to each other,
why shouldn't they get a patent on it and get rich off their invention?
You feel sorry for the PhoneNet clone companies who let Farallon
take the financial risk of doing the R&D and creating a market, and then
pop up with their own cheap clones, and who now might be put out of
business because the Farallon patent was granted? Give me a break. You
think the people who started those companies were so naive to think this
wouldn't happen? Especially considering that every PhoneNet connector I've
ever seen has the words "Patents Pending" molded into the plastic. I note
that the word "Patents" is plural; presumably there are other patents still
wending their way through the PTO?
Besides, Farallon makes a better product than their competitors, so
it wouldn't bother me if the other guys get driven out of business (not
that that's particular germane to the questions of whether Farallon is
evil incarnate just because they got a patent issued). We have a couple
dozen Farallon PhoneNet connectors on our network, and I've never seen one
fail. We have exactly two NexSYS connectors (don't ask me; somebody went
out and bought them without consulting me) which have experienced a 50%
failure rate.
--
Roy Smith, Public Health Research Institute
455 First Avenue, New York, NY 10016
roy@alanine.phri.nyu.edu -OR- {att,philabs,cmcl2,rutgers,hombre}!phri!roy
"My karma ran over my dogma"jordan@Apple.COM (Jordan Mattson) (03/22/90)
Dear Friend - You are probably thinking of some of the early BMUG articles about PhoneNet, which were written by the folks that help found BMUG and then went on to found Farallon (People like Resse Jones). They developed the idea and then sought a patent on that. There is nothing wrong with that. Just because they discussed the idea in public while they were developing and then realized that it was patentable. -- Jordan Mattson UUCP: jordan@apple.apple.com Apple Computer, Inc. CSNET: jordan@apple.CSNET Development Tools Product Management AppleLink: Mattson1 20525 Mariani Avenue, MS 27S Cupertino, CA 95014 408-974-4601 "Joy is the serious business of heaven." C.S. Lewis
leburg@mentor.cc.purdue.edu (Brian Pierson) (03/23/90)
Just a quick comment on behalf of one of the clone companies,Nuvotech. We have a 150 or so node net in the building. We went with Nuvotech for two reasons. One they cost less and TWO they were self-terminating. Yes I know that Farallon has a scheme for putting the resistors in the wall, making their network terminate. We decided that since we wouldn't need to open any wall plates, for the nuvotech, that it was the way to go. We have had them installed now for 2 years and I am glad to say that I have never had any trouble with any of the Boxes. We needed the network to terminate because of secs. moving their machinesinto secure areas at night. Brian Pierson
ts@cup.portal.com (Tim W Smith) (03/25/90)
From page 1 of the "PhoneNET(R) User's Guide": "Patents for several design concepts used in the PhoneNET connector and system are pending" Any clone maker should have been aware of this. Farallon did not just go out and sneak a patent in while no one was watching! Remember, it takes several years to get a patent. Tim Smith