stores@unix.SRI.COM (Matt Mora) (09/21/89)
Today (9-21-89) I got a call from our pattent office saying that SRI cold be held liable for patent infringement because of hypercards scripting capabilities. A company called HyperZoom wants SRI to protect itself by buying a license from them for about $10 a mac. They say they got our name from MacWeek's list of the top 100 companies that use macintoshes. The patent covers something called zoomrect that they showed to apple and after they shown it , scrolling fields were put into hypercard. They say that its possible to infringe on the patent by using hyperTalk. And to save SRI the hassel of checking all stacks that are created in house or to be released commercially, that SRI should just buy a license from them. Has any of the other companies received this letter? -- ___________________________________________________________ Matthew Mora SRI International stores@unix.sri.com ___________________________________________________________
chuq@Apple.COM (Chuq Von Rospach) (09/22/89)
>Today (9-21-89) I got a call from our pattent office >saying that SRI cold be held liable for patent infringement >because of hypercards scripting capabilities. >A company called HyperZoom wants SRI to protect itself by buying >a license from them for about $10 a mac. >They say they got our name from MacWeek's list of the top 100 companies >that use macintoshes. >The patent covers something called zoomrect that they showed to apple >and after they shown it , scrolling fields were put into hypercard. >Has any of the other companies received this letter? Many. HyperZoom has yet to prove anything to anyone, which hasn't stopped them from trying to 'convince' people to send them 'licensing fees'. chuq (translate 'convince' to 'coerce' and 'licensing fees' to 'protection money' and you get my feeling on the matter. There isn't any legal indication that the patent is either valid or relevant...) -- Chuq Von Rospach <+> Editor,OtherRealms <+> Member SFWA/ASFA chuq@apple.com <+> CI$: 73317,635 <+> [This is myself speaking. I am not Appl Segmentation Fault. Core dumped.
alms@cambridge.apple.com (Andrew L. M. Shalit) (09/22/89)
In article <3710@unix.SRI.COM> stores@unix.SRI.COM (Matt Mora) writes:
[stuff deleted]
The patent covers something called zoomrect that they showed to apple
and after they shown it , scrolling fields were put into hypercard.
I think the patent was on a product call 'ZoomRacks' for the Atari ST,
not 'zoomrect'.
-andrewamanda@intercon.com (Amanda Walker) (09/22/89)
In article <3710@unix.SRI.COM>, stores@unix.SRI.COM (Matt Mora) writes: > Today (9-21-89) I got a call from our pattent office > saying that SRI cold be held liable for patent infringement > because of hypercards scripting capabilities. > > A company called HyperZoom wants SRI to protect itself by buying > a license from them for about $10 a mac. They've actually been doing this for a while. They make a product (for PCs, last I knew) called "ZoomRacks", which has a few similarities to HyperCard, notably a "card" metaphor and some scripting capabilities. What they claim to have a patent on is a "rack-of-cards" metaphor, and instead of trying to take on Apple about HyperCard itself, they are trying to get anyone whose stack might infringe on this patent to pay them a license fee. They think of anyone writing HyperCard stacks to be fair game. As for me, I'm pretty skeptical. Even for a computer patent, this seems to be stretching things pretty far... Anyone have more concrete information? -- Amanda Walker amanda@intercon.com
lemay@lorelei.Sun.COM (Laura Lemay) (09/22/89)
In article <3710@unix.SRI.COM>, stores@unix.SRI.COM (Matt Mora) writes: > A company called HyperZoom wants SRI to protect itself by buying > a license from them for about $10 a mac. Wow. What a **scummy** thing to do. I agree with Chuq; this is nothing but a thinly veiled protection gambit. Even if HyperZoom's patent *was* infringed, it seems extremely doubtful that any scripters would be legally liable. *Apple* would be the one who would be liable -- perhaps HyperZoom is just too afraid to sue them (and with just cause, too), so they're going after the users instead?? Thats like if someone had a patent on the daisy-wheel suing every one who owns a typewriter. (not than anyone actually USES a typewriter anymore :-) :-) -Laura Lemay lemay%lorelei@sun.com Redhead. Drummer. Geek.
gz@spt.entity.com (Gail Zacharias) (09/22/89)
>They've actually been doing this for a while. They make a product (for PCs, >last I knew) called "ZoomRacks", which has a few similarities to HyperCard, >notably a "card" metaphor and some scripting capabilities. Sounds to me like HyperZoom's just trying to protect the look and feel of their product. I hear somebody's been workin' hard to establish a legal precedent for that sort of thing. -- gz@entity.com ...!mit-eddie!spt!gz Now let's all repeat the non-conformist oath.
kazim@Apple.COM (Alex Kazim) (09/23/89)
In article <3710@unix.SRI.COM> stores@sri-unix.sri.com (Matt Mora) writes: > >The patent covers something called zoomrect that they showed to apple >and after they shown it , scrolling fields were put into hypercard. I guess I'm a little confused here. A zoomrect, to me, means the zooming rect that everyone sees from the Finder. A scrolling field? How is that different than, say, SFGetFile()? And if there really is a patent problem here, shouldn't they be suing Apple? And if we did need a license, shouldn't we have gotten one that covered everyone who used Hypertalk?? Wow. I guess lawyers are worth something. BTW: I HAVE NO CONNECTION WITH THE HYPERCARD TEAM OR APPLE LEGAL. I'M JUST MOUTHING OFF AND I HAVE NO REAL IDEA WHAT I'M TALKING ABOUT!!!! Disclaimer enough? ==================================================================== Alex Kazim, Apple Computer "We don't use it as tool. We use it as a weapon." -- Some broker talking about his Mac at the Product Intro.
rob@uokmax.ecn.uoknor.edu (Robert K Shull) (09/23/89)
In article <210@spt.entity.com> gz@entity.com (Gail Zacharias) writes: >Sounds to me like HyperZoom's just trying to protect the look and feel of >their product. I hear somebody's been workin' hard to establish a legal >precedent for that sort of thing. Who could this be? I can't think of any company that's suing (or threatening to sue) the PURCHASERS of another company's product. I always thought you sued the MANUFACTURER for infringement. -- Robert K. Shull chinet!uokmax!rob sun!texsun!uokmax!rob
harry@ngc.UUCP (Harry Saal) (09/23/89)
I am not an attorney, and am not attempting to argue for or against the patents in question or the tactics being used. But I am reminded of when I first learned of Olaf Soderblom's efforts to collect royalty fees for systems incorporating technology he claimed was in a patent issued many years ago. 1. Everyone couldn't believe this could happen. After all, the technology was already part of an IEEE standard, and he was demanding royalties! 2. He did NOT attempt to collect fees from the IC vendors that built silicon according to the IBM/802.5 spec; he went after all companies that built boards and/or systems that included said chips. (Does this sound familiar now?) Now, several years after pursuing the above strategy, virtually all of the vendors of Token-Ring technology have signed some form of license agreement with him. Details (unfortunately) aren't disclosed about individual fee structures, etc.
gz@spt.entity.com (Gail Zacharias) (09/23/89)
rob@uokmax.UUCP (Robert K Shull) writes: >In article <210@spt.entity.com> gz@entity.com (Gail Zacharias) writes: >>Sounds to me like HyperZoom's just trying to protect the look and feel of >>their product. I hear somebody's been workin' hard to establish a legal >>precedent for that sort of thing. >Who could this be? I can't think of any company that's suing (or threatening >to sue) the PURCHASERS of another company's product. I always thought you >sued the MANUFACTURER for infringement. That's just an implementation detail. The important question is whether or not they've got certain "rights" wrt a product just because it uses the same pictures and metaphors that they do. Once that's granted, they can try to collect using whatever imaginative strategies their lawyers and accountants can come up with. -- gz@entity.com ...!mit-eddie!spt!gz Now let's all repeat the non-conformist oath.