tmb@ai.mit.edu (Thomas M. Breuel) (05/13/91)
In article <1991May13.044909.3617@netdev.comsys.com> alex@netdev.comsys.com (Alex Huppenthal) writes:
Boycott Hayes for their stupid lawsuit which is crippling Ventel
on copyright infringement. They have gone so far as to contact
Ventel's customers and indicate all accounts payable should be
delivered to Hayes - Nice guys....
Don't hi-tech companies have anything better to do than qibble about
their standards infringement ? It's a sorry excuse for technical leadership.
Perhaps Hayes lost that edge a long time ago...
If anyone know more about this lawsuit I'd be happy to hear about the
details.
The patent attorneys for the defendants in Hayes' patent infringement
suit are still looking for other examples of "prior art" in the case.
Hayes is claiming to have invented the idea of using timeouts to
transmit out-of-band data to modems (in particular, their use of the
"+++" sequence with timeout to switch a modem from transparent mode
into command mode). They want to keep other people from making Hayes
compatible modems by enforcing this claim.
To most people "skilled in the art" that I have talked to, this patent
claim is frivolous; Hayes simply set a standard, but did not "invent"
any new process or device.
If you can think of uses prior to the mid-1980's of timeouts or timing
to transmit out-of-band commands or data to a computer or communications
device, please drop me a note, and I can put you in touch with the
attorneys handling the case.
Thomas.
PS: I have no financial interest in this matter. I simply dislike
Hayes' patent claim.peter@ficc.ferranti.com (Peter da Silva) (05/13/91)
In article <TMB.91May13041549@volterra.ai.mit.edu> tmb@ai.mit.edu (Thomas M. Breuel) writes: > If you can think of uses prior to the mid-1980's of timeouts or timing > to transmit out-of-band commands or data to a computer or communications > device, please drop me a note, and I can put you in touch with the > attorneys handling the case. I know this is a bit obvious, but that's basically how unclocked serial communications (such as async ascii) work in the first place, by using timing to transmit data to a computer or communications device... -- Peter da Silva; Ferranti International Controls Corporation; +1 713 274 5180; Sugar Land, TX 77487-5012; `-_-' "Have you hugged your wolf, today?"
diamond@jit533.swstokyo.dec.com (Norman Diamond) (05/14/91)
In article <TMB.91May13041549@volterra.ai.mit.edu> tmb@ai.mit.edu (Thomas M. Breuel) writes: >Hayes is claiming to have invented the idea of using timeouts to >transmit out-of-band data to modems (in particular, their use of the >"+++" sequence with timeout to switch a modem from transparent mode >into command mode). >If you can think of uses prior to the mid-1980's of timeouts or timing >to transmit out-of-band commands or data to a computer or communications >device, please drop me a note, Timeouts were used all the time. However, modems were little dumb peripherals and they didn't time themselves out; a smarter device (such as CPU and software) did the timing out when desired. And early modems didn't have a command mode. When several old ideas are combined together in a new way, even though the new way is blatantly obvious and trivial, is that an invention? Sometimes yes, sometimes no. Knowing an invention when you see it is even harder than knowing obscenity when you see it. If one puts signal-converting electronics in one box and software smarts in another box and snaps them together so that a Hayes modem is emulated by two boxes instead of by one, then surely there is no infringement of anything that could be patentable. -- Norman Diamond diamond@tkov50.enet.dec.com If this were the company's opinion, I wouldn't be allowed to post it. Permission is granted to feel this signature, but not to look at it.
schwartz@groucho.cs.psu.edu (Scott Schwartz) (05/14/91)
tmb@ai.mit.edu (Thomas M. Breuel) writes:
If you can think of uses prior to the mid-1980's of timeouts or timing
to transmit out-of-band commands or data to a computer or communications
device, please drop me a note, and I can put you in touch with the
attorneys handling the case.
Isn't that how vi handles function keys? Anyone know vi's inception
date?rfarris@rfengr.com (Rick Farris) (05/14/91)
In article <TMB.91May13041549@volterra.ai.mit.edu> tmb@ai.mit.edu (Thomas M. Breuel) writes: > To most people "skilled in the art" that I have talked to, this patent > claim is frivolous; Hayes simply set a standard, but did not "invent" > any new process or device. Damn!, if only we had judges that had your understanding of patent law and technology, wouldn't this be a wonderful place? -- Rick Farris RF Engineering POB M Del Mar, CA 92014 voice (619) 259-6793 rfarris@rfengr.com ...!ucsd!serene!rfarris serenity bbs 259-7757
rockwell@socrates.umd.edu (Raul Rockwell) (05/14/91)
Thomas M. Breuel: If you can think of uses prior to the mid-1980's of timeouts or timing to transmit out-of-band commands or data to a computer or communications device, please drop me a note, and I can put you in touch with the attorneys handling the case. Well, I've heard of morse code, but why would I want to talk to an attorney? :-) Raul Rockwell
grr@cbmvax.commodore.com (George Robbins) (05/14/91)
In article <TMB.91May13041549@volterra.ai.mit.edu> tmb@ai.mit.edu (Thomas M. Breuel) writes: > In article <1991May13.044909.3617@netdev.comsys.com> alex@netdev.comsys.com (Alex Huppenthal) writes: > If you can think of uses prior to the mid-1980's of timeouts or timing > to transmit out-of-band commands or data to a computer or communications > device, please drop me a note... The closest example I can think of is the way DEC timingsharing systems used to handle paper tape input. Normally all keyboard input would be echoed, but entering a "tape" command would turn off echo and enter a binary transparency mode, then send an x-on character to start the teletype tape reader. As long as the reader would transmit a character regularly, the line would stay in the special mode. As soon as the reader hit the end of tape or was interrupted, then the system would timeout and switch back to normal interactive echo. Whether or not this is complementary to using timeouts for a guard band... I believe this feature was common to various DEC timesharing operating systems in the 1978-1972 timeframe - TSS-8, RSTS, PDP-10 Monitor. -- George Robbins - now working for, uucp: {uunet|pyramid|rutgers}!cbmvax!grr but no way officially representing: domain: grr@cbmvax.commodore.com Commodore, Engineering Department phone: 215-431-9349 (only by moonlite)
root@zswamp.uucp (Geoffrey Welsh) (05/14/91)
In a letter to All, Peter da Silva (peter@ficc.ferranti.com ) wrote: >In article <TMB.91May13041549@volterra.ai.mit.edu> >tmb@ai.mit.edu (Thomas M. Breuel) writes: > If you can think of uses prior to the mid-1980's of timeouts or timing > to transmit out-of-band commands or data to a computer or communications > device, please drop me a note, and I can put you in touch with the > attorneys handling the case. >I know this is a bit obvious, but that's basically how >unclocked serial >communications (such as async ascii) work in the first >place, by using >timing to transmit data to a computer or communications >device... I think they need something more specific, i.e. the use of timeouts to identify characters as control and not as data. In particular, the pause (default 1 second) before and after three escape characters (default "+"). -- Geoffrey Welsh - Operator, Izot's Swamp BBS (FidoNet 1:221/171) root@zswamp.uucp or ..uunet!watmath!xenitec!zswamp!root 602-66 Mooregate Crescent, Kitchener, ON, N2M 5E6 Canada (519)741-9553 "He who claims to know everything can't possibly know much" -me
root@zswamp.uucp (Geoffrey Welsh) (05/14/91)
In a letter to All, Scott Schwartz (schwartz@groucho.cs.psu.edu ) wrote: >tmb@ai.mit.edu (Thomas M. Breuel) writes: > If you can think of uses prior to the mid-1980's of >timeouts or timing > to transmit out-of-band commands or data to a computer or >communications > device, please drop me a note, and I can put you in touch >with the > attorneys handling the case. >Isn't that how vi handles function keys? Yes! Brilliant! When in text entry mode, vi will treat ESC differently depending on the pause that follows it! -- Geoffrey Welsh - Operator, Izot's Swamp BBS (FidoNet 1:221/171) root@zswamp.uucp or ..uunet!watmath!xenitec!zswamp!root 602-66 Mooregate Crescent, Kitchener, ON, N2M 5E6 Canada (519)741-9553 "He who claims to know everything can't possibly know much" -me
ltf@ncmicro.lonestar.org (Lance Franklin) (05/15/91)
In article <-i5Hsdq3@cs.psu.edu> schwartz@groucho.cs.psu.edu (Scott Schwartz) writes: } }tmb@ai.mit.edu (Thomas M. Breuel) writes: } If you can think of uses prior to the mid-1980's of timeouts or timing } to transmit out-of-band commands or data to a computer or communications } device, please drop me a note, and I can put you in touch with the } attorneys handling the case. } }Isn't that how vi handles function keys? Anyone know vi's inception }date? I beleive that Wordstar used to use a timeout on it's two-key functions. If you didn't hit the second key within a certain period of time, a help screen would pop up giving you a list of applicable keys. This was, I beleive, to efficiently work with slow terminals, where expert users could hit the second key quickly and avoid taking up the time to display the help. Since the terminal could be considered a communications device in this case, perhaps this would be helpful to your case? Lance -- Lance T. Franklin +----------------------------------------------+ (ltf@ncmicro.lonestar.org) | "You want I should bop you with this here | NC Microproducts, Inc. | Lollipop?!?" The Fat Fury | Richardson, Texas +----------------------------------------------+
kurt@pnet51.orb.mn.org (Kurt Sletterdahl) (05/15/91)
The following is a small portion of a Hayes press release,
giving their version of how the litigation started:
"The Patent involved in the lawsuit, known as the Heatherington '302
Patent, was issued to Hayes on 22 October 1985 and covers the escape
mechanism implemented in every Hayes Smartmodem product.
A year after the Patent issued, Hayes was sued in San Francisco by a
consortium of manufacturers of Hayes-compatible modems who challenged the
Hayes Patent. The consortium named themselves the Modem Patent Defense
Group. Although most of the members of the consortium eventually took
licenses under the Patent, Ven-Tel, Everex and OmniTel refused to respect
the Patent and forced Hayes to undergo a jury trial."
The following is a more recent Hayes press release on the subject. As for
who was right in this dispute, the jury verdict and Judge's comments speak
for themselves. No, I am not directly or indirectly associated with Hayes.
"HAYES GRANTED ADDITIONAL DAMAGES AND ATTORNEYS' FEES
IN SAN FRANCISCO PATENT LITIGATION
Atlanta, GA, 22 April 1991 -- U.S. modem maker Hayes
Microcomputer Products, Inc. was granted additional damages and attorneys'
fees today by Federal Judge Samuel A. Conti in San Francisco in the
long-standing patent dispute with Everex Systems, Inc., Ven-Tel, Inc. and
OmniTel, Inc. The rulings were issued just three months after a San
Francisco jury found that the Heatherington '302 Patent was valid,
enforceable and willfully infringed by the defendants. The total award to
Hayes from these defendants now stands at approximately $10 million.
Because the Jury had found in late January that the infringement
by Everex, Ven-Tel and OmniTel was willful, Judge Conti doubled the
damages awarded by the Jury. In support of his doubling the award, Judge
Conti said that these willful infringers must not be allowed to have
infringed a valid patent for five or six years and then only have to pay a
1.75% royalty to the owner of the valid patent. The Judge then stated,
"This is particularly the case where, as here, it is undisputed that Hayes
offered defendants an opportunity to license the patented technology, at
terms similar to those offered by Hayes to many other competitors, and
defendants did not even bother to respond." Judge Conti also noted that
the defendants "clearly adopted, early on, a strategy of long-term,
expensive litigation -- while continuing to sell products which they were
on notice might very well be infringing -- rather than making any attempt
to deal with Hayes directly."
Judge Conti also granted Hayes request for attorneys' fees and
expenses of litigation. In support of this award, Judge Conti relied
heavily on the finding of willful infringement and noted that, "Hayes, in
short, has been put to an enormous and expensive burden in litigating this
case and a jury has reasonably found that defendants willfully infringed
Hayes' valid patent." Judge Conti strongly emphasized the need to prevent
further infringement of the Hayes patent. "The court hopes that its
holding will serve to help deter would-be future infringers from plunging
into complex, expensive litigation, while continuing their infringing
behavior, in the absence of more of a good faith belief in the rightness
of their cause than defendants apparently had here."
Hayes was also awarded prejudgment interest to be added to the
damages for infringing sales dating back to the beginning of the
infringement for each defendant.
The Court also denied the defendants' request that the Jury
verdict be overturned. After reviewing all of the evidence in the trial,
Judge Conti concluded that the Jury made a "reasonable conclusion" on all
issues and that there was "substantial" evidence in support of the Jury's
findings.
"The Judge's decision to double the damages awarded by the San
Francisco Jury and award attorneys' fees and expenses to Hayes confirms
the strength and significance of the Jury's verdict," said Hayes President
Dennis C. Hayes. "We are glad to see that disrespect for valid patents
and the patent system will not be tolerated by the courts."
The Patent involved in this lawsuit, known as the Heatherington
'302 Patent or the Modem With Improved Escape Sequence, was issued to
Hayes on 22 October 1985, as United States Letters Patent Number
4,549,302. The escape sequence mechanism has been used by Hayes for the
past decade in every one of its Smartmodem products. Since the first
Smartmodem product was shipped on 16 June 1981, all modem manufacturers
who have truthfully made the claim that their modems are
"Hayes-compatible" have used the same escape sequence mechanism. "This
technology has withstood the test of time," said Dennis Hayes, "and no one
has demonstrated to the industry a better escape mechanism."
In 1988, Multi-Tech Systems, Inc. of Minneapolis, Minnesota filed
an action similar to the San Francisco case against Hayes. Hayes expects
to go to trial in Minneapolis later this year and will seek the same
result against Multi-Tech as Hayes obtained in San Francisco. In
addition, because validity of the Heatherington '302 Patent has now been
upheld, Hayes will again seek additional damages and attorneys' fees for
willful infringement."
[Paragraphs Deleted]
UUCP: {amdahl!bungia, uunet!rosevax, crash}!orbit!pnet51!kurt
ARPA: crash!orbit!pnet51!kurt@nosc.mil
INET: kurt@pnet51.orb.mn.orgrockwell@socrates.umd.edu (Raul Rockwell) (05/15/91)
Thomas M. Breuel:
If you can think of uses prior to the mid-1980's of timeouts or
timing to transmit out-of-band commands or data to a computer or
communications device, please drop me a note, and I can put you
in touch with the attorneys handling the case.
In case anyone doesn't see clearly the resemblance between morse code
and ascii, here's the phrase "a cat" in ascii, in terms of current
pulse lengths:
on 1, off 2, on 4, off (at least 2)
on 2, off 1, on 5, off (at least 1)
on 1, off 2, on 3, off (at least 3)
on 1, off 2, on 4, off (at least 2)
on 1, off 3, on 1, off (at least 3)
Note that in morse code pauses of varying length are used to
distinguish between (*) on pulses, (*) letters (*) sentences or
phrases (*) transmissions. Ascii formalizes the first two cases, but
does not address the other two as much.
It happens that the timing for the hayes '+++' is convenient for a
human striking the keys, but that is also the case for morse code.
--------
Anyways, it is clear that the hayes patent doesn't hold water. After
all, it doesn't use Modulo Arithmetic. (joke)
Raul Rockwelljclark@sdcc6.ucsd.edu (John Clark) (05/15/91)
In article <-i5Hsdq3@cs.psu.edu> schwartz@groucho.cs.psu.edu (Scott Schwartz) writes: + +tmb@ai.mit.edu (Thomas M. Breuel) writes: + If you can think of uses prior to the mid-1980's of timeouts or timing + to transmit out-of-band commands or data to a computer or communications The un*x program 'cu' has the <CR>~ sequence to gain access to the local program. But I would imagine the specific thing of the 'hayes' approach is the 'if no keys strokes for 2 seconds and then '+++' is seen then break'. -- John Clark jclark@ucsd.edu
berger@clio.sts.uiuc.edu (Mike Berger) (05/16/91)
>In article <TMB.91May13041549@volterra.ai.mit.edu> tmb@ai.mit.edu (Thomas M. Breuel) writes: >>Hayes is claiming to have invented the idea of using timeouts to >>transmit out-of-band data to modems (in particular, their use of the >>"+++" sequence with timeout to switch a modem from transparent mode >>into command mode). >>If you can think of uses prior to the mid-1980's of timeouts or timing >>to transmit out-of-band commands or data to a computer or communications >>device, please drop me a note, *---- How about the hookswitch on a telephone? Tapping the hookswitch in a properly timed way would get the operator's attention, invoke special features, etc. Telephone hookswitches predate hayes modems. -- Mike Berger Department of Statistics, University of Illinois AT&TNET 217-244-6067 Internet berger@atropa.stat.uiuc.edu
rjc@devo.unify.com (Ronald Cole) (05/16/91)
In article <TMB.91May13041549@volterra.ai.mit.edu> tmb@ai.mit.edu (Thomas M. Breuel) writes:
If you can think of uses prior to the mid-1980's of timeouts or timing
to transmit out-of-band commands or data to a computer or communications
device, please drop me a note, and I can put you in touch with the
attorneys handling the case.
Isn't an RS232 break just an ascii NUL with a framing error?
That is certaintly an out-of-band command!
--
Ronald Cole +----------------------+ internet: rjc@unify.com
Software Engineer II | This space for rent. | uucp: uunet!unify!rjc
Unify Corporation +----------------------+ voice: +1 916 928 6238
"Relax. What is mind? No matter. What is matter? Never mind!" - Homer Simpsongumby@Cygnus.COM (David V. Wallace) (05/16/91)
Date: 14 May 91 05:27:27 GMT From: rockwell@socrates.umd.edu (Raul Rockwell) Well, I've heard of morse code, but why would I want to talk to an attorney? :-) Gee, the error I usually get from Sendmail is "Not a typewriter" rather than "Not an attourney"...
nelson@sun.soe.clarkson.edu (Russ Nelson) (05/17/91)
In article <4913@orbit.cts.com> kurt@pnet51.orb.mn.org (Kurt Sletterdahl) writes:
"This technology has withstood the test of time," said Dennis
Hayes, "and no one has demonstrated to the industry a better escape
mechanism."
Gack. Either he doesn't understand market forces, or he's truly clueless.
--
--russ <nelson@clutx.clarkson.edu> I'm proud to be a humble Quaker.
Clear cutting is criminal, spiking trees is criminal, and using hyperbole of
this magnitude in a serious discussion is criminal. -- Irv Chidseywjb@moscom.UUCP (Bill de Beaubien) (05/17/91)
In article <1991May15.181614.7845@ux1.cso.uiuc.edu> berger@clio.sts.uiuc.edu (Mike Berger) writes: >How about the hookswitch on a telephone? Tapping the hookswitch in a >properly timed way would get the operator's attention, invoke special >features, etc. Telephone hookswitches predate hayes modems. For that matter, you can dial with your hookswitch... a group of n taps will dial digit n (don't try this on long distance numbers, it's easy to screw it up :-) (I've used this feature on a phone where the digits on the pad didn't work...) There's even an out of band command... hangup. :-+ >-- > Mike Berger > Department of Statistics, University of Illinois > AT&TNET 217-244-6067 > Internet berger@atropa.stat.uiuc.edu -- "Bless me, Father; I ate a lizard." "Was it an abstinence day, and was it artificially prepared?" ------------------------------------------------------------- Bill de Beaubien / wjb@moscom.com
peter@ficc.ferranti.com (Peter da Silva) (05/17/91)
In article <4913@orbit.cts.com> kurt@pnet51.orb.mn.org (Kurt Sletterdahl) writes: > The following is a more recent Hayes press release on the subject. As for > who was right in this dispute, the jury verdict and Judge's comments speak > for themselves. Given the other outrageous abuses of the patent and copyright systems in the field of software do you really think that this particular case is any less obscene. Particularly when the president of hayes says things like: > "Hayes-compatible" have used the same escape sequence mechanism. "This > technology has withstood the test of time," said Dennis Hayes, "and no one > has demonstrated to the industry a better escape mechanism." The use of the defined standard RS-232 lines, such as DTR, for transmitting such out-of-band data, or the use of the break signal, is clearly superior. The only reason the +++ sequence is still used is because it's the convention Hayes established when it had a virtual monopoly in the field. And the only reason that it was used in the first place was the poor design of micros' serial ports back in the late '70s and early '80s. It's a kludge, and no more deserves patent protection than does a nylon stocking used as a spare fanbelt. (someone please follow up with LPF information) -- Peter da Silva; Ferranti International Controls Corporation; +1 713 274 5180; Sugar Land, TX 77487-5012; `-_-' "Have you hugged your wolf, today?"
gillies@m.cs.uiuc.edu (Don Gillies) (05/18/91)
In this case, I don't think it's reasonable to rag on Hayes. I have heard that they license the command set for a very reasonable price. You can either (a) spend thousands of times as much money on lawyers in attempt to get something for nothing, or (b) pay Hayes some respect for establishing a useful standard, and license the command set. It's sort of like this guy who has the patent on the microprocessor. Sure, it scares everyone to death, but what if he's willing to license it for $.00001 per microprocessor? Wouldn't it be worth it for the industry to pay him the $100,000 or so he has coming in order to settle the issue? It's cheaper than hiring one corporate lawyer for a year, and it settles the issue once and for all. Don Gillies | University of Illinois at Urbana-Champaign gillies@cs.uiuc.edu | Digital Computer Lab, 1304 W. Springfield, Urbana IL --
mitchell@MDI.COM (Bill Mitchell) (05/18/91)
In article <9BDBC58@xds13.ferranti.com> peter@ficc.ferranti.com (Peter da Silva) writes: >[...] > >The use of the defined standard RS-232 lines, such as DTR, for transmitting >such out-of-band data, or the use of the break signal, is clearly superior. >The only reason the +++ sequence is still used is because it's the convention >Hayes established when it had a virtual monopoly in the field. And the only >reason that it was used in the first place was the poor design of micros' >serial ports back in the late '70s and early '80s. > >[...] Be fair now. The +++ mechanism allowed users and application writers to manipulate the modem without having to worry about how to twiddle hardware control lines. If you could talk _thru_ the modem, you could talk _to_ the modem. That's a _big_ advantage over not being able to control the modem unless you could find a way to twiddle the control lines in some strange way. I remember a modem (I've forgotten who perpetrated it upon me) which expected to be talked _thru_ with RTS asserted and talked _to_ with RTS released. Drop RTS, give it commands to dial the phone, raise RTS to talk to the other end of the link, drop RTS to give it more commands, etc.; and I remember the hassle these things caused. Hayes "+++" was like a breath of fresh air. -- mitchell@mdi.com (Bill Mitchell)
sichermn@beach.csulb.edu (Jeff Sicherman) (05/18/91)
In article <1991May17.214226.10776@m.cs.uiuc.edu> gillies@m.cs.uiuc.edu (Don Gillies) writes: >In this case, I don't think it's reasonable to rag on Hayes. I have >heard that they license the command set for a very reasonable price. >You can either (a) spend thousands of times as much money on lawyers >in attempt to get something for nothing, or (b) pay Hayes some respect >for establishing a useful standard, and license the command set. Perhaps true, depending on your set of values, but the command set is *not* the subject of the patent. (In general, I dont think you can patent languages, which a command set essentially is.) > >It's sort of like this guy who has the patent on the microprocessor. >Sure, it scares everyone to death, but what if he's willing to license >it for $.00001 per microprocessor? Wouldn't it be worth it for the >industry to pay him the $100,000 or so he has coming in order to >settle the issue? It's cheaper than hiring one corporate lawyer for a >year, and it settles the issue once and for all. > True, provising you think the patent is valid. If not, it just encourages people and companies to patent minor elements of major industrial successes for the purpose of extorting large sums of money at just a little per unit. Somewhat akin to stealing the round-off errors from bank transactions and depositing them in your account: "but nobody will notice or be hurt".
grr@cbmvax.commodore.com (George Robbins) (05/18/91)
In article <2746@moscom.UUCP> wjb@moscom.UUCP (Bill de Beaubien) writes: > In article <1991May15.181614.7845@ux1.cso.uiuc.edu> berger@clio.sts.uiuc.edu (Mike Berger) writes: > >How about the hookswitch on a telephone? Tapping the hookswitch in a > >properly timed way would get the operator's attention, invoke special > >features, etc. Telephone hookswitches predate hayes modems. > > For that matter, you can dial with your hookswitch... a group of n taps will > dial digit n (don't try this on long distance numbers, it's easy to screw it > up :-) (I've used this feature on a phone where the digits on the pad didn't > work...) To improve the error rate, make a sawtoothed comb out of cardboard or someother convenient material. Remember back when phones had dials and there were this little keylocks you'd stick in the dial.... heh-heh... -- George Robbins - now working for, uucp: {uunet|pyramid|rutgers}!cbmvax!grr but no way officially representing: domain: grr@cbmvax.commodore.com Commodore, Engineering Department phone: 215-431-9349 (only by moonlite)
ac999321@umbc5.umbc.edu (ac999321) (05/18/91)
In article <1991May14.034600.7891@rfengr.com> rfarris@rfengr.com (Rick Farris) writes: >In article <TMB.91May13041549@volterra.ai.mit.edu> tmb@ai.mit.edu (Thomas M. Breuel) writes: > >> To most people "skilled in the art" that I have talked to, this patent >> claim is frivolous; Hayes simply set a standard, but did not "invent" >> any new process or device. > >Damn!, if only we had judges that had your understanding of >patent law and technology, wouldn't this be a wonderful >place? > > >-- >Rick Farris RF Engineering POB M Del Mar, CA 92014 voice (619) 259-6793 >rfarris@rfengr.com ...!ucsd!serene!rfarris serenity bbs 259-7757 Too bad that there is no law that requires judges and lawyers to have appropriate technical knowlege (along with a reasonable IQ and good common sense) that pertains to any cases of a technical nature, that they might be required to get involved with, before they are allowed to get involved with it; the same for any politicians who would attempt to pass any laws which deal with technical matters, or other matters which they have no thorough understanding of. Unfortunately, we have a lot of laws being passed, and court decisions being made, by those who have not the adequate knowledge to do so. However, as long as these types of people, who often despise what they nastily refer to as "techies", remain in control of the government, the same types of mistakes will continue to be made. -- ********************************************************************** Robert D. Davis # _REAL_ Education = The Benny Hill Show +1-301-744-7964 # Real Entertainment = Hill's Angels ac999321@umbc5.umbc.edu #-------------------------------------------
sichermn@beach.csulb.edu (Jeff Sicherman) (05/18/91)
In article <1991May18.091829.14936@umbc3.umbc.edu> ac999321@umbc5.umbc.edu (ac999321) writes: > >Too bad that there is no law that requires judges and lawyers to have >appropriate technical knowlege (along with a reasonable IQ and good >common sense) that pertains to any cases of a technical nature, that they >might be required to get involved with, before they are allowed to get >involved with it; the same for any politicians who would attempt to pass >any laws which deal with technical matters, or other matters which they >have no thorough understanding of. Unfortunately, we have a lot of laws >being passed, and court decisions being made, by those who have not the >adequate knowledge to do so. However, as long as these types of people, >who often despise what they nastily refer to as "techies", remain in >control of the government, the same types of mistakes will continue to >be made. >-- There is probably much truth in this. However, it's also too bad that there is no law that requires engineers and other techies to have some appropriate legal training before they decide that their technical training, IQ's and common sense (?) qualify them to pass sweeping judgments on matters of law and judicial procedure without knowing the details of the case at hand, the legal principles involved, and the presentation to the court. Jeff Sicherman a 'techie'
riddle@hoss.unl.edu (Michael H. Riddle) (05/18/91)
In <1991May18.102918.8003@beach.csulb.edu> sichermn@beach.csulb.edu (Jeff Sicherman) writes: >In article <1991May18.091829.14936@umbc3.umbc.edu> ac999321@umbc5.umbc.edu (ac999321) writes: >>Too bad that there is no law that requires judges and lawyers to have >>appropriate technical knowlege (along with a reasonable IQ and good >>common sense) that pertains to any cases of a technical nature, that they >>might be required to get involved with, before they are allowed to get >>involved with it; the same for any politicians who would attempt to pass >>any laws which deal with technical matters, or other matters which they >>have no thorough understanding of. Unfortunately, we have a lot of laws >>being passed, and court decisions being made, by those who have not the >>adequate knowledge to do so. However, as long as these types of people, >>who often despise what they nastily refer to as "techies", remain in >>control of the government, the same types of mistakes will continue to >>be made. >>-- > There is probably much truth in this. However, it's also too bad that >there is no law that requires engineers and other techies to have some >appropriate legal training before they decide that their technical >training, IQ's and common sense (?) qualify them to pass sweeping >judgments on matters of law and judicial procedure without knowing >the details of the case at hand, the legal principles involved, and >the presentation to the court. >Jeff Sicherman >a 'techie' As both a graduate JD and a "techie," there's much to be said on both sides. What has been completely missing from this discussion is what may be patented and why. The Constitution allows Congress to authorize patents for "securing for limited Times to Authors and Inventors the exclusive Right to their respective Writings and Discoveries." U.S. Const. Art I, Sec. 8, Cl. 8. The patent laws try to make some tradeoffs between compensating the intellectual endeavors required for useful and new inventions, and the economic advantage of the unfettered marketplace. I've seen no technical discussion from the "techies" to support the allegations that Hayes shouldn't have received a patent on their invention. To the contrary, remember the "posture of the case." Hayes was the defendant. Several modem manufacturers brought suit to challenge the validity of the Hayes patent and lost. Many other vendors, for whatever reasons, chose to license rather than fight. Their reasons are unknown, but speculations suggests either economics or realization that the Hayes patent was valid. Hayes does not appear to have tried to preclude anyone from using the technology; rather, posters more knowledgeable than I have characterized their license agreements as "reasonable." What appears to be the case is that Hayes has a valid patent, no matter what some of us might wish to be the case, and that some individuals chose to attack it and lost. That's the way our system works. I'd still like to see informed technical discussion, such as one might expect to have been made before the patent examiner when the patent was first issued. Then maybe we'd have something to discuss besides our opinions. -- <<<< insert standard disclaimer here >>>> riddle@hoss.unl.edu | Nebraska Inns of Court ivgate!inns!postmaster@uunet.uu.net | +1 402 593 1192 Sysop of 1:285/27@Fidonet | 3/12/24/9600/8N1/V.32/V.42bis
tmb@ai.mit.edu (Thomas M. Breuel) (05/19/91)
In article <1991May18.154225.2699@unlinfo.unl.edu> riddle@hoss.unl.edu (Michael H. Riddle) writes:
Hayes does not appear to have tried to preclude anyone from using the
technology; rather, posters more knowledgeable than I have characterized
their license agreements as "reasonable."
But it is irrelevant whether Hayes' licensing policy is "reasonable"
or "unreasonable". Regardless of whether you believe that the patent
is valid or not, granting rights to this "invention" to Hayes gives
Hayes a definite advantage in the market place, be it because of their
income from license fees, be it because they potentially have power to
exclude competitors from making compatible modems (even if they
don't usually exercise that power).
What appears to be the case is that Hayes has a valid patent, no matter
what some of us might wish to be the case, and that some individuals chose
to attack it and lost. That's the way our system works.
I'd still like to see informed technical discussion, such as one might
expect to have been made before the patent examiner when the patent was
first issued. Then maybe we'd have something to discuss besides our
opinions.
Hayes patent might currently be considered "valid" since it has been
upheld in court. However, whether it is actually valid under current
law is a different question, and laywers and technical experts
disagree on this matter.
I think the technical issues have actually been discussed at length in
this and other newsgroups. There are a number of prior uses of "guard
times" in communications equipment and software dating back to the
60's. Since the idea itself is much older than the patent, the only
question that remains whether use of the idea in a modem is really
substantially different from use of the idea in these other devices.
The issue to me is also not whether Hayes patent is valid under
current law or not. It may be, or (more likely), it may not be. The
main issue is that the current procedures for obtaining and enforcing
patents on software seem to be damaging to the computer and software
industry.
MIT has been involved in defending a number of patent infringement
cases. In these cases, even though many people were aware of the
existence of prior art, establishing this fact legally required
enormous efforts by people who have better things to do, and
significant expenses on the part of the defendants. At least in the
area of software, the costs of the patent system to me clearly seem to
outweigh its benefits.
Thomas.riddle@hoss.unl.edu (Michael H. Riddle) (05/19/91)
In <TMB.91May19043527@volterra.ai.mit.edu> tmb@ai.mit.edu (Thomas M. Breuel) writes: >But it is irrelevant whether Hayes' licensing policy is "reasonable" >or "unreasonable". Regardless of whether you believe that the patent >is valid or not, granting rights to this "invention" to Hayes gives >Hayes a definite advantage in the market place, be it because of their >income from license fees, be it because they potentially have power to >exclude competitors from making compatible modems (even if they >don't usually exercise that power). Excuse me? I thought that was the whole idea behind a patent. To reward the inventor. >The issue to me is also not whether Hayes patent is valid under >current law or not. It may be, or (more likely), it may not be. The >main issue is that the current procedures for obtaining and enforcing >patents on software seem to be damaging to the computer and software >industry. The Congress, not the courts, is the proper place to challenge the law. If enough congress.critters can be convinced, you can get the law changed to read the way you want it to read. -- <<<< insert standard disclaimer here >>>> riddle@hoss.unl.edu | Nebraska Inns of Court ivgate!inns!postmaster@uunet.uu.net | +1 402 593 1192 Sysop of 1:285/27@Fidonet | 3/12/24/9600/8N1/V.32/V.42bis
tmb@ai.mit.edu (Thomas M. Breuel) (05/19/91)
In article <1991May19.123246.6857@unlinfo.unl.edu> riddle@hoss.unl.edu (Michael H. Riddle) writes: In <TMB.91May19043527@volterra.ai.mit.edu> tmb@ai.mit.edu (Thomas M. Breuel) writes: >But it is irrelevant whether Hayes' licensing policy is "reasonable" >or "unreasonable". Regardless of whether you believe that the patent >is valid or not, granting rights to this "invention" to Hayes gives >Hayes a definite advantage in the market place, be it because of their >income from license fees, be it because they potentially have power to >exclude competitors from making compatible modems (even if they >don't usually exercise that power). Excuse me? I thought that was the whole idea behind a patent. To reward the inventor. Please don't change or confuse the issue, and please quote more carefully. Several people have argued that the "The Hayes patent doesn't matter since Hayes' licenses are 'reasonable'". I simply pointed out that that argument is not sensible. Hayes should keep their patent and "be rewarded" if and only if it is a valid patent under current law. >The issue to me is also not whether Hayes patent is valid under >current law or not. It may be, or (more likely), it may not be. The >main issue is that the current procedures for obtaining and enforcing >patents on software seem to be damaging to the computer and software >industry. The Congress, not the courts, is the proper place to challenge the law. If enough congress.critters can be convinced, you can get the law changed to read the way you want it to read. You are quoting out of context again. All I am saying is that the "issue" we should discuss is what form of patent protection is the most appropriate for the computer industry; few people in this forum are qualified to address the other issue of whether Hayes' patent is actually valid under current law, and legal authorities themselves do not seem to have a unanimous opinion on this question. As far as challenging the law is concerned, the Hayes patent seems to fall into a grey area of the law. It is quite possible that under current law the patent is actually invalid, even if a lower court found it to be valid. Precedents may significantly affect the interpretation of the law in future cases, and the courts are very much the correct place to resolve such issues. Regardless of what the right place to resolve the question of the validity of the Hayes patent is, it serves as another reminder to me of how damaging to the industry awarding patents on trivial re-"inventions" like guard times for escape sequences can be. Anyone who would like to see a healthy and diverse software industry in the future should help work towards having the laws clarified and the procedures for patent approval streamlined and rationalized, in addition to trying to help establish legal precedents. Thomas.
peter@ficc.ferranti.com (Peter da Silva) (05/19/91)
In article <1991May18.154225.2699@unlinfo.unl.edu> riddle@hoss.unl.edu (Michael H. Riddle) writes: > I've seen no technical > discussion from the "techies" to support the allegations that Hayes > shouldn't have received a patent on their invention. I have. Here are the relevant facts: Hayes original patent was on the hardware of their 300 baud modem. It was a clever piece of hackery, and unarguably deserved the patent. In this patent was a reference to the guard time escape sequence. A couple of years later, Hayes rewrote the patent. I don't know the mechanism of this, but the result was that the original ideas described in the abstract were relegated to second string, and a minor part of the interface spec became paramount. So, Hayes turned a valid hardware patent into a software patent, after establishing a standard based in part on a minor portion of the original patent. The whole legal basis of software patents itself is under lively discussion, since it is based on a decision that had little to do with the patenting of software per se, but was rather a decision that a patent that incorporated software would not be thrown out purely on that basis. > Their reasons are unknown, but speculations > suggests either economics or realization that the Hayes patent was valid. Economics, certainly. > I'd still like to see informed technical discussion, such as one might > expect to have been made before the patent examiner when the patent was > first issued. Then maybe we'd have something to discuss besides our > opinions. There has been plenty of informed technical discussion, with references to prior art. The problem is that what was originally patented is not what Hayes is now claiming. In another context this is known as "bait and switch". -- Peter da Silva; Ferranti International Controls Corporation; +1 713 274 5180; Sugar Land, TX 77487-5012; `-_-' "Have you hugged your wolf, today?"
peter@ficc.ferranti.com (peter da silva) (05/19/91)
In article <1991May19.123246.6857@unlinfo.unl.edu>, riddle@hoss.unl.edu (Michael H. Riddle) writes: > The Congress, not the courts, is the proper place to challenge the law. > If enough congress.critters can be convinced, you can get the law changed > to read the way you want it to read. The law already reads the way we want it to read. The problem is that the interpretation of the law by the patent office has changed. Hayes is (among many other people taking advantage of the change in interpretation) patenting an algorithm. That is not what the patent system was intended, designed, nor implemented for... and it is only the lack of technical understanding by the members of the legal system (to have created this loophole in the first place), and the patent system (to allow such incredible abuses of it) that lets hayes, AT&T, and other entities get away with this sort of thing. -- Peter da Silva; Ferranti International Controls Corporation; +1 713 274 5180; Sugar Land, TX 77487-5012; `-_-' "Have you hugged your wolf, today?"
mitchell@MDI.COM (Bill Mitchell) (05/19/91)
In article <TMB.91May19043527@volterra.ai.mit.edu> tmb@ai.mit.edu (Thomas M. Breuel) writes: > >[...] > >MIT has been involved in defending a number of patent infringement >cases. In these cases, even though many people were aware of the >existence of prior art, establishing this fact legally required >enormous efforts by people who have better things to do, and >significant expenses on the part of the defendants. At least in the >area of software, the costs of the patent system to me clearly seem to >outweigh its benefits. > Two issues here. The patent system and the conflict resolution system. The patent system establishes a clear point over which to engage in conflict, and the conflict resolution system expresses the loss in monetary terms and decides who pays and who collects. Our system for resolving conflict in the U.S. is gladiatorial. Each side hires a gladiator, and they fight it out. Gladiators with a stunning record of victories are expensive, and the side able to afford the most expensive team of gladiators stands the best chance of winning. Modern-day gladiators are, of course, attorneys. Conflicts are usually decided by ex-gladiators (judges), and the system rulemakers and administrators (legistrators and appeallate judges) are for the most part ex-gladiators as well. Like all analogies, that one is a bit strained; but I think it gives one reasonable picture of our civil legal system and how it fits into our society. Like it or not, that's the system. Like it or not, the system is here to stay. -- mitchell@mdi.com (Bill Mitchell)
night@jec308.its.rpi.edu (Trip Martin) (05/20/91)
riddle@hoss.unl.edu (Michael H. Riddle) writes: >In <TMB.91May19043527@volterra.ai.mit.edu> tmb@ai.mit.edu (Thomas M. Breuel) writes: >>But it is irrelevant whether Hayes' licensing policy is "reasonable" >>or "unreasonable". Regardless of whether you believe that the patent >>is valid or not, granting rights to this "invention" to Hayes gives >>Hayes a definite advantage in the market place, be it because of their >>income from license fees, be it because they potentially have power to >>exclude competitors from making compatible modems (even if they >>don't usually exercise that power). >Excuse me? I thought that was the whole idea behind a patent. To reward >the inventor. Section 8. The Congress shall have Power ... To promote the Progress of Science and useful Arts, by securing for limited Times to Authors and Inventors the exclusive Right to their respective Writings and Discoveries; As the Consitution says, the purpose of the patent system is "to promote the progress of science and useful arts." Rewarding the inventor is only the means by which that goal is achieved. If patents no longer promote progress, and can be (and has been) argued that the patent system should be dismantled, or at least changed to fit the original goal. -- Trip Martin night@rpi.edu -- Trip Martin night@rpi.edu
gsh7w@astsun9.astro.Virginia.EDU (Greg Hennessy) (05/20/91)
Michael H. Riddle writes:
#Excuse me? I thought that was the whole idea behind a patent. To reward
#the inventor.
Not in the United Stated at least. The purpose of a patent is to
benifit society, by encouraging inventors to publish their inventions.
Without patents, inventors would keep the details of what they do
secret. The inventor is given a monopoly for a certain period of time
to provide encouragement to release the details of their invention.
--
-Greg Hennessy, University of Virginia
USPS Mail: Astronomy Department, Charlottesville, VA 22903-2475 USA
Internet: gsh7w@virginia.edu
UUCP: ...!uunet!virginia!gsh7wal@escom.com (Al Donaldson) (05/20/91)
In article <1991May19.123246.6857@unlinfo.unl.edu>, riddle@hoss.unl.edu (Michael H. Riddle) writes: > The Congress, not the courts, is the proper place to challenge the law. > If enough congress.critters can be convinced, you can get the law changed > to read the way you want it to read. Not very likely, since congress critters are predominately lawyers who almost never do anything to jeopardize business for other lawyers.. Just my personal point of view, but since I own this company it is also the corporate point of view. Al
adam@soda.berkeley.edu (Adam J. Richter) (05/20/91)
In article <1991May19.200750.25020@murdoch.acc.Virginia.EDU> gsh7w@astsun9.astro.Virginia.EDU (Greg Hennessy) writes: >Without patents, inventors would keep the details of what they do secret. I'd be interested in hearing about any studies investigating the question of to what extent the above statement actually is true. For example, I'd be interested in studies showing that there were no books published about programming techniques prior to the mid-1980's. Any pointers would be appreciated. Adam J. Richter adam@soda.berkeley.edu 409 Evelyn Avenue, Apt. 312 ....!ucbvax!soda!adam Albany, CA 94706 Home: (415)528-3209
smb@ulysses.att.com (Steven Bellovin) (05/20/91)
The fundamental question we have to answer is this: if software patents are to be disallowed, what alternative mechanism would you propose to encourage people to publish new algorithms? (I'd rather argue the question using RSA as an example; its originality, novelty, and utility are beyond question. The Hayes patent may not qualify as new -- but the very difficulty of resolving that issue makes it a bad hook upon which to hang the policy question.) I'm perfectly serious. In an industry where fortunes are being made, and where many vendors have gone overboard on copy protection because of piracy, how are we to encourage publication, if not by patents? The issue of abuse, either statutory (i.e., a 17 year period, which is too long for software) or in the Patent Office (granting dubious patents due to lack of expertise) are, I would say, separable questions.
gsh7w@astsun.astro.Virginia.EDU (Greg Hennessy) (05/20/91)
In article <14833@ulysses.att.com> smb@ulysses.att.com (Steven Bellovin) writes:
#The fundamental question we have to answer is this: if software
#patents are to be disallowed, what alternative mechanism would you
#propose to encourage people to publish new algorithms?
Those in academia already have incentive. Publishing advances your
career.
Considering how sucessful the software industry has been without
software patents (since software patents are a very new invention) I
would submit that the software industry has shown that it can prosper
without software patents.
--
-Greg Hennessy, University of Virginia
USPS Mail: Astronomy Department, Charlottesville, VA 22903-2475 USA
Internet: gsh7w@virginia.edu
UUCP: ...!uunet!virginia!gsh7wgeyer@galton.uchicago.edu (05/20/91)
In article <14833@ulysses.att.com> smb@ulysses.att.com (Steven Bellovin) writes: > The fundamental question we have to answer is this: if software > patents are to be disallowed, what alternative mechanism would you > propose to encourage people to publish new algorithms? (I'd > rather argue the question using RSA as an example; its originality, > novelty, and utility are beyond question. The Hayes patent may > not qualify as new -- but the very difficulty of resolving that > issue makes it a bad hook upon which to hang the policy question.) I see no reason whatsoever to fear that RSA would have been kept as a trade secret if software patents had not been invented by the courts. R, S, and A are academics. They have to publish or perish, not so? The patents are held by their universities, which are mainly in the business of free intellectual inquiry the last time I checked. This software patent nonsense is just something to keep a few administrators busy. It's probably not worth the damage to science that it causes. If these universities were wholeheartedly supportive of science, they would relinquish the patents (or put them in the public domain or whatever one does to make the ``invention'' freely available). > I'm perfectly serious. In an industry where fortunes are being > made, and where many vendors have gone overboard on copy protection > because of piracy, how are we to encourage publication, if not > by patents? This raises two issues (1) do new ideas really come from industry? and (2) what is the correct answer to copy protection and other "screw the customer" schemes? I don't really know the answer to (1), but I have the feeling that the answer is mostly no, especially if one excludes from the calculations the pre-divestiture Bell Labs, since AT&T was forbidden by regulatory control to act in the predatory manner of the current computer biz. As for (2) the answer is don't use that stuff. Customer hostility has reduced the incidence of copy protection. If customers would really start looking out for themselves they would avoid most vendors until they change their behavior. The real issue is whether the customers will have a chance to teach the industry some respect or whether the courts will invent enough protection for the entrenched forces of reaction to give them a monopoly. There is a real fear that computers will always be a bad as they are now or much worse because innovation will be outlawed. I for one would gladly trade all of the bells and whistles that will be invented in the next ten or twenty years for computers that work. Just my 2 cents. Charles Geyer Department of Statistics University of Chicago geyer@galton.uchicago.edu
burley@mole.gnu.ai.mit.edu (Craig Burley) (05/20/91)
In article <1991May19.200750.25020@murdoch.acc.Virginia.EDU> gsh7w@astsun9.astro.Virginia.EDU (Greg Hennessy) writes: Michael H. Riddle writes: #Excuse me? I thought that was the whole idea behind a patent. To reward #the inventor. Not in the United Stated at least. The purpose of a patent is to benifit society, by encouraging inventors to publish their inventions. Without patents, inventors would keep the details of what they do secret. The inventor is given a monopoly for a certain period of time to provide encouragement to release the details of their invention. Agreed. Which is why I don't think any interface, per se, should be patentable, i.e. any interface where the existence of the interface in a product by definition means it is "published". If Hayes had packaged their modems together with software to run them and had NOT publised their command set or interface, and had used their silly timing technique, then on that basis alone, I would say it might be patentable (of course, use of the same timing technique prior to Hayes "invention" of it is still a valid reason for it to not be patentable). But as soon as they said "here's our modem's interface" and expected people or other people's software to deal with it, that should inherently make it unpatentable, because it placed that interface into a class of "inventions" that was it was never the purpose of our patent system to protect. -- James Craig Burley, Software Craftsperson burley@gnu.ai.mit.edu
jhenders@wimsey.bc.ca (John Henders) (05/20/91)
In article <14833@ulysses.att.com> smb@ulysses.att.com (Steven Bellovin) writes: >The fundamental question we have to answer is this: if software >made, and where many vendors have gone overboard on copy protection >because of piracy, how are we to encourage publication, if not >by patents? The issue of abuse, either statutory (i.e., a 17 >year period, which is too long for software) or in the Patent Office >(granting dubious patents due to lack of expertise) are, I would >say, separable questions. I'm not quite clear on how you've managed to connect software piracy with patent protection here. Patent law doesn't protect published software, copyrights do. Anyone skilled enough to extract an algorithm from object code would hardly be troubled by copy protection. I think the advantages gained by the publication of patented algorithm's are vastly outweighed by the locking out of the use of said algorithm for a number of years. Especially when such obvious things as backing-store and x-oring of cursors are granted patents. John Henders Vancouver,B.C.
) (05/20/91)
gillies@m.cs.uiuc.edu (Don Gillies) writes: > It's sort of like this guy who has the patent on the microprocessor. > Sure, it scares everyone to death, but what if he's willing to license > it for $.00001 per microprocessor? Wouldn't it be worth it for the > industry to pay him the $100,000 or so he has coming in order to > settle the issue? This is a key point. I, and I suspect many other people, would be happier with the idea of software patents if the licensing fees were restricted, and if the patent owners were required to grant licenses to all applicants at the same rate. We would end up with something like the proposed payment system for reading text in Xanadu, or like the 1 cent per CD which Philips makes. Unfortunately, quite what is a reasonable amount of payment is open to debate. Also, there would be problems with free software; but then, software which costs 5 cents in patent payments is as near to free as makes no difference to most people. mathew
jcburt@ipsun.larc.nasa.gov (John Burton) (05/20/91)
In article <14833@ulysses.att.com> smb@ulysses.att.com (Steven Bellovin) writes: >The fundamental question we have to answer is this: if software >patents are to be disallowed, what alternative mechanism would you >propose to encourage people to publish new algorithms? (I'd >rather argue the question using RSA as an example; its originality, >novelty, and utility are beyond question. The Hayes patent may >not qualify as new -- but the very difficulty of resolving that >issue makes it a bad hook upon which to hang the policy question.) > I think one problem with your argument/question is it presumes that the primary reason for "publishing a new algorithm" is for monetary gains. This is not always the case. As far as "publishing new algorithms", people have been doing that for years WITHOUT using patents. Its known as publication in a professional journal, which are generally protected under COPYRIGHT laws. If you want new algorithms, take a look at "Communications of the ACM"...no patents there. If you really take a look into who supports patents and who opposes them, you'd find that the business managers & lawyers (the ones who handle the MONEY side of things) are for software patents, the programmers & computer scientist (the ones who work with the computers) are against software patents. This doesn't always hold, but to a great extent it does. Tell me if this sounds crazy...I want to get a patent on the following... 1. Take two eggs, a cup of flower, two tablespoons of butter, a quarter cup of sugar, and a quarter cup of milk. 2. Mix it all together in a medium size bowl. 3. Put the mixture in a flat pan and bake for 20 minutes. 4. (heres the unique part) Cut it in half, and bake each half for another 20 minutes. This is an alogrithm...a series of instructions producing a desired result from a given starting point. Of course if I tried to get a patent on this, I would be laughed out of the patent office. Yet if this had been a computer program, I probably could have gotten a patent. The difference? the computer program could make someone a fortune, the recipe probably couldn't. In mathematics, algorithms are used all the time, with new ones being published almost continually. Can you imaging what would happen to ALL the scienes (and from there ALL technology and ALL society which is based on that technology) if patents were used to "encourage mathematicians to publish their algorithms"??? Lets see, since just about everything IN mathmatics IS an algorithm...hmmm..."well, I have a patent on Linear Interpolation, so everyone that uses Linear Interpolation will have to pay me a license fee..." "I have a patent on floating point multiplication...guess every computer manufacturer who makes a floating point coprocessor will have to pay me a license fee...boy, will I make MONEY!!!". If patents on algorithms had been used by mathematicians starting in the 1800's, science would still be back in the 1800's because instead of going forward, and doing basic research, the majority of manpower would be wasted trying to "reinvent the wheel" to get around the alogorithm patents. In the field of computer programming, if software patents become the rule, as opposed to the exception, all progress would come to grinding halt in a few years...more and more manpower would be applied to working around patents, and working around the patents on the work arounds, and working around....(you get the picture). So basically, I hope you are happy with the current state of computer software, because as software patents become more and more common, less and less progress will be made. Progress is adding another floor to a building made by others. If you had to go back and lay a new foundation each time, little progress would be made. The software patent does serve several purposes. It DOES provide jobs for patent lawyers. It DOES protect a company that is not able to compete technically. It DOES provide jobs for programming drones, whose only job is to keep "reinventing the wheel" in an effort to keep ahead of the patents from other companies. >I'm perfectly serious. In an industry where fortunes are being >made, and where many vendors have gone overboard on copy protection >because of piracy, how are we to encourage publication, if not >by patents? The issue of abuse, either statutory (i.e., a 17 >year period, which is too long for software) or in the Patent Office >(granting dubious patents due to lack of expertise) are, I would >say, separable questions. I don't know, seems to me, companies like Borland are doing fairly well without resorting to patents and litigation. There is a MAJOR difference between protecting a software package and patenting algorithms. A software package consists of possibly hundreds of individual alogrithms. Patenting the individual algorithms stifles progress (as I discussed above) and does not protect from piracy. Many companies are finding that copy protection isn't the answer since many users simply won't buy a package that is copy protected. You are correct, there is a problem with illegally copying software. Its different from illegally copying manuscripts (protected under copyright laws) in magnitude (i.e. much easier to electronically copy a huge program, as opposed to photocopying a huge manuscript), but perhaps copyright protection of the entire package would be a better starting point than patent protection of the individual algorithm. If a company profits from copying and redistributing anothers product, they should be legally prosecuted. If a company A creates a product that performs the same operations and functions as company B's product (but is NOT copied from company B), and sells it for less, then that should be considered fair competition. What *should* happen is that company B improves its product, either by cutting its price, making it faster or smaller or adding features so it would be more competitive with company A' product. What *does* happen is that company B sues company A. This results in added legal cost for both companies (creates more jobs for lawyers) and stifled competition. You ask why American companies can't compete in the world marketplace? They spend too much time an money in litigation and not enough in product research and development. This is not just true in the computer industry, but throughout the American economy. sorry, enough rambling...software patents are NOT the answer, despite what the lawyers say... John +--------------------------------------------------------------------+ | John Burton | | G & A Technical Software | | jcburt@gatsibm.larc.nasa.gov | | jcburt@cs.wm.edu | | | | Disclaimer: Hey, what can I say...These are *my* views, not those | | of anyone else, be they employer, school, or government| +--------------------------------------------------------------------+
smb@ulysses.att.com (Steven Bellovin) (05/20/91)
In article <1991May20.080912.11342@wimsey.bc.ca>, jhenders@wimsey.bc.ca (John Henders) writes: > > I'm not quite clear on how you've managed to connect software piracy > with patent protection here. Patent law doesn't protect published software, > copyrights do. Anyone skilled enough to extract an algorithm from object code > would hardly be troubled by copy protection. I was reasoning by analogy. Given that vendors are already scared of appropriation of their technology, without something like patent protection -- *where it's appropriate* -- we'll see less and less published.
peter@ficc.ferranti.com (Peter da Silva) (05/20/91)
In article <14833@ulysses.att.com> smb@ulysses.att.com (Steven Bellovin) writes: > The fundamental question we have to answer is this: if software > patents are to be disallowed, what alternative mechanism would you > propose to encourage people to publish new algorithms? Since one cannot sell software without effectively publishing the algorithms used, particularly for interface specifications which seems to be where the majority of these patents occur (XOR cursor, guard times, offscreen bitmaps, setuid, etc), I think this is pretty much a moot point. Can you come up with a counterexample: a new algorithm that was not published in any form prior to the appearance of software patents? -- Peter da Silva; Ferranti International Controls Corporation; +1 713 274 5180; Sugar Land, TX 77487-5012; `-_-' "Have you hugged your wolf, today?"
nazgul@alphalpha.com (Kee Hinckley) (05/21/91)
In article <1991May20.032227.20127@midway.uchicago.edu> geyer@galton.uchicago.edu writes: >I see no reason whatsoever to fear that RSA would have been kept as a >trade secret if software patents had not been invented by the courts. >R, S, and A are academics. They have to publish or perish, not so? >The patents are held by their universities, which are mainly in the >business of free intellectual inquiry the last time I checked. This The RSA patent is held by a private company. Last time we checked they were licensing permission to use it for about $20K + royalties. -- Alfalfa Software, Inc. | Poste: The EMail for Unix nazgul@alfalfa.com | Send Anything... Anywhere 617/646-7703 (voice/fax) | info@alfalfa.com I'm not sure which upsets me more: that people are so unwilling to accept responsibility for their own actions, or that they are so eager to regulate everyone else's.
sichermn@beach.csulb.edu (Jeff Sicherman) (05/21/91)
Just a suggestion: Other than the name of hayes in the subject line, this is getting pretty far-afield from modems. How about taking comp.dcom.modems out of the distribution, please !
jbuck@janus.Berkeley.EDU (Joe Buck) (05/21/91)
In article <1991May20.023251.142@murdoch.acc.Virginia.EDU> gsh7w@astsun.astro.Virginia.EDU (Greg Hennessy) writes: >In article <14833@ulysses.att.com> smb@ulysses.att.com (Steven Bellovin) writes: >#The fundamental question we have to answer is this: if software >#patents are to be disallowed, what alternative mechanism would you >#propose to encourage people to publish new algorithms? > >Those in academia already have incentive. Publishing advances your >career. Not only that, but Steven Bellovin gives RSA as an example, and the names that appear on the relevant patents are those of college professors, who, as Greg Hennessy points out, did the research to advance their careers. Unfortunately, some leading institutions have changed their policies in recent years; instead of attempting to spread their discoveries far and wide, secure in the knowledge that this will enhance their reputations, attract new talent and lots of research money, instead more and more of them are attempting to license their discoveries, withholding it from publication, in an attempt to squeeze the last dollar out of it. -- -- Joe Buck jbuck@janus.berkeley.edu {uunet,ucbvax}!janus.berkeley.edu!jbuck
peter@ficc.ferranti.com (Peter da Silva) (05/21/91)
In article <7e19222w164w@mantis.co.uk> mathew@mantis.co.uk (CNEWS MUST DIE!) writes: > Unfortunately, quite what is a reasonable amount of payment is open to > debate. Also, there would be problems with free software; but then, software > which costs 5 cents in patent payments is as near to free as makes no > difference to most people. Let's say the payment is epsilon. No matter how many copies of a patent I license, the payment is lost in the noise. What is not lost is the patent search, the paperwork, etc. Let's see... my latest program used: binary trees. subroutines. callback functions. UNIX-style argument parsing. linked lists. floating point arithmetic. integer arithmetic. nested loops. Lets' say all these algorithms (equivalent in complexity to some of the patented algorithms) were patented. I'd have to get Ferranti to cut 7 checks for license fees. Even if those checks totalled $1.44, it'd still cost Ferranti a couple of hundred bucks for the paperwork on the program. And this is for a one-off job I needed to generate some reports for load balancing. <200 lines long, total. Think of all the possible patents a large program could violate! That's the problem: software is by far the most complex thing we have yet devised. The number of potential patent violations in a relatively small program quickly becomes exponential once a significant number of software patents exist. -- Peter da Silva; Ferranti International Controls Corporation; +1 713 274 5180; Sugar Land, TX 77487-5012; `-_-' "Have you hugged your wolf, today?"
tmb@ai.mit.edu (Thomas M. Breuel) (05/21/91)
In article <1991May21.172118.22744@kithrup.COM> sef@kithrup.COM (Sean Eric Fagan) writes:
(Devil's advocate mode)
Ah, but if I spend millions of dollars researching and developing a
wonderful user interface, and someone can just "knock off" a clone of it,
why should I bother with doing the research at all? (Incidently, this is
why UI copyrights are even worse than patents.)
There are two major reasons. One is that you couldn't just invest
millions of dollars and get back a good user interface even if you
wanted to. Good user interfaces seem to be built by a continual
feedback between users and implementors. This has been the case with
most of the good user interfaces that I have used, and, as far as I
can tell, it has also been the case to a large degree with the
Macintosh user interface.
The other reason is that most of the hard work in building a good
interface is in the detail and politics, not in any kind of idea that
needs to be protected by anything but copyright. A good user interface
requires virtually bug-free implementations with great attention to
detail, as well as enough influence to enforcing consistency.
Thomas.gast@maui.cs.ucla.edu (David Gast) (05/21/91)
In article <1991May18.154225.2699@unlinfo.unl.edu> riddle@hoss.unl.edu (Michael H. Riddle) writes: >In <1991May18.102918.8003@beach.csulb.edu> sichermn@beach.csulb.edu (Jeff Sicherman) writes: > >>In article <1991May18.091829.14936@umbc3.umbc.edu> ac999321@umbc5.umbc.edu (ac999321) writes: > >>>Too bad that there is no law that requires judges and lawyers to have >>>appropriate technical knowlege ... >>>that pertains to any cases of a technical nature, that they >>>might be required to get involved with, before they are allowed to get >>>involved with it; >> There is probably much truth in this. However, it's also too bad that >>there is no law that requires engineers and other techies to have some >>appropriate legal training before they ... >As both a graduate JD and a "techie," there's much to be said on both >sides. What has been completely missing from this discussion is what may >be patented and why. The Constitution allows Congress to authorize >patents for "securing for limited Times to Authors and Inventors the >exclusive Right to their respective Writings and Discoveries." U.S. >Const. Art I, Sec. 8, Cl. 8. First, the constitution authorizes, it does not require that Congress pass such laws. Second, the words patent and copyright never appear in the Constitution. Third, the complete clause is: To promote the progress of science and useful arts, by securing for limited times to authors and inventors the exclusive right to their respective writings and discoveries; Thus, if progress is not promoted, then the patent is invalid. How does this particular patent advance progress? I am not saying that progress is not being promoted, I am merely asking how it is promoted. >Hayes does not appear to have tried to preclude anyone from using the >technology; Irrelevant to the discussion of whether a particular patent is valid or not. >I'd still like to see informed technical discussion, such as one might >expect to have been made before the patent examiner when the patent was >first issued. Then maybe we'd have something to discuss besides our >opinions. One can be fairly certain that the patent examiner has no c.s. background. Another patent that may be of interest to this group is one held by IBM. I forget the exact number. Essentially, IBM was granted a patent on mail merge software in the middle to late nineteen eighties. If you read the patent, sendmail falls underneath the patent because it includes the time of day in the message. David
bud@kentrox.uucp (Bud Couch) (05/22/91)
In article <1991May21.172118.22744@kithrup.COM> sef@kithrup.COM (Sean Eric Fagan) writes: >In article <BURLEY.91May20013030@mole.gnu.ai.mit.edu> burley@mole.gnu.ai.mit.edu (Craig Burley) writes: >>Agreed. Which is why I don't think any interface, per se, should be >>patentable, i.e. any interface where the existence of the interface in a >>product by definition means it is "published". > >(Devil's advocate mode) >Ah, but if I spend millions of dollars researching and developing a >wonderful user interface, and someone can just "knock off" a clone of it, >why should I bother with doing the research at all? (Incidently, this is >why UI copyrights are even worse than patents.) > I interpreted his use of the word "interface" to mean _machine to machine_ interfaces, not _screen and keyboard_ interfaces. This makes somewhat sense, inasmuch as someone *else* (besides the patent) holder must write code and modify equipment to meet the interface. In other words, the patent is useless without other's efforts. I'm not sure if this is a panacea, but I do agree, especially with "standards" efforts. It galls me no end that standards bodies have written and issued "standards" which require that users of these "standards" fork over royalty payments to some patent holder. -- ################################################# Bud Couch - ADC/Kentrox | And diff'ring judments serve but to declare | If my employer only knew... |That truth lies somewhere, if we knew but where| standard BS applies | -William Cowper |
geyer@galton.uchicago.edu (05/22/91)
In article <1991May20.032227.20127@midway.uchicago.edu> I wrote: I see no reason whatsoever to fear that RSA would have been kept as a trade secret if software patents had not been invented by the courts. R, S, and A are academics. They have to publish or perish, not so? The patents are held by their universities, which are mainly in the business of free intellectual inquiry the last time I checked. This In article <1991May20.172012.9445@alphalpha.com> nazgul@alphalpha.com (Kee Hinckley) writes: >The RSA patent is held by a private company. Last time we checked >they were licensing permission to use it for about $20K + royalties. Several recent postings have said that the patents were granted to Stanford and MIT. They may be assigned to some private company for the purpose of making money, but the behavior of the universities is still deplorable. By the way, are these patents making money? or just holding up the widespread use of public key cryptography for another ten years. Charles Geyer Department of Statistics University of Chicago geyer@galton.uchicago.edu
dhesi%cirrusl@oliveb.ATC.olivetti.com (Rahul Dhesi) (05/23/91)
In <14833@ulysses.att.com> smb@ulysses.att.com (Steven Bellovin) writes:
If software patents are to be disallowed, what alternative
mechanism would you propose to encourage people to publish new
algorithms?
In general, there is no need special to encourage people to publish new
algorithms. For many centuries they have been happy to do so. Some
algorithms (e.g. RSA) are worthless if they are not publicly available,
so their inventors would have no incentive to keep them secret --
either they get famous for inventing them and they can use them, or
nobody knows about them and nobody (not even the inventors) get to use
them. There would be some limited cases of algorithms being used
secretly -- but reverse engineering will soon ferret them out for the
rest of the world to use.
There are two big problems with software and algorithm patents.
(a) It is hard to be clear about the scope of such patents. When is a
new algorithm completely distinct from an older one? Could the person
who invented bubblesort (if he had been granted a patent) claim a
royalty from everybody else using any sort technique at all for 17
years? Very likely.
(b) Many algorithms are invented not because they are inherently new
and unique, but because nobody needed them before. For example, the
Hayes pause-sequence-pause technique was probably invented many times
over previously in other contexts, and *would have been invented many
times over again* had Hayes not patented it and created a big
hullaballo. Something that is invented over and over again is
obviously not new and "unobvious" and does not deserve patent
protection. *This seems to happen much more with software patents*
than with hardware patents.
By the way, you cannot separate the issue of software patents from
copyright protection. They ought to be both designed to go hand in
hand. My proposal:
1. Define 'software' and 'hardware' more clearly.
2. Either completely disallow software patents, or make them expire
in about two years.
3. Change copyright law so no protection is copyright given to any
software which is not published in its original source form.
This will result in more innovation and sharing of ideas.
No more mixing of trade secrets and copyright by distributing
binary-only software! The vendor must either confidentially license
software and preserve trade secrets but not rely on copyright law, or
rely on copyright law and expect no trade secret protection. This is
the only way the constitutional goals behind copyright law can be
achieved.
--
Rahul Dhesi <dhesi@cirrus.COM>
UUCP: oliveb!cirrusl!dhesikurt@pnet51.orb.mn.org (Kurt Sletterdahl) (05/23/91)
In the event that anyone is interested, a 42 page booklet entitled "General
Information Concerning Patents" is available through the Consumer Information
Catalog, Consumer Information Center, P.O. Box 100, Pueblo, Colorado, 81002.
UUCP: {amdahl!bungia, uunet!rosevax, crash}!orbit!pnet51!kurt
ARPA: crash!orbit!pnet51!kurt@nosc.mil
INET: kurt@pnet51.orb.mn.orgzaphod@madnix.UUCP (Ron Bean) (05/23/91)
In Article <NELSON.91May16164003@sun.clarkson.edu>, nelson@sun.soe.clarkson.edu (Russ Nelson) writes: >In article <4913@orbit.cts.com> kurt@pnet51.orb.mn.org (Kurt Sletterdahl) writes: > > "This technology has withstood the test of time," said Dennis > Hayes, "and no one has demonstrated to the industry a better escape > mechanism." > >Gack. Either he doesn't understand market forces, or he's truly clueless. I have an older Avatex 1200 which does not have a command-escape sequence of any kind. The only time you really *must* have one is if you don't have a DTR pin on your serial port (eg, Macintosh), and you need a way to make the modem hang up. All other uses are optional. Most modems will hang up if you drop DTR, but I ran into one piece of software that doesn't even try that, and insists that you must have some kind of command-escape (although it doesn't have to be Hayes-compatible). The program is Compu$erve's CIM ("Compu$erve Information Manager"), which is a windowed front-end for using Compu$erve. When you log off from CIS, you're still connected to their packet network, so you don't lose carrier, and the modem just sits there waiting for something to happen. When I mentioned this on their CIM support forum, they were, as you say, "truly clueless". They suggested using a batch file that dropped DTR after I exited the program... I can think of a couple of simple alternatives to the Hayes method, but I think it's more likely that the manufacturers will just continue to pay royalties to Hayes, as most of them are doing now. ================== zaphod@madnix.UUCP (Ron Bean) {harvard|rutgers|ucbvax}!uwvax!astroatc!nicmad!madnix!zaphod
peter@ficc.ferranti.com (Peter da Silva) (05/24/91)
In article <1991May17.222410.26944@MDI.COM> mitchell@MDI.COM (Bill Mitchell) writes: > Be fair now. Hard to do with my complexion. > The +++ mechanism allowed users and application writers to manipulate > the modem without having to worry about how to twiddle hardware control > lines. If you could talk _thru_ the modem, you could talk _to_ the > modem. Like I said, it's a kludge that covers for an inadequate programming interface to the hardware. -- Peter da Silva; Ferranti International Controls Corporation; +1 713 274 5180; Sugar Land, TX 77487-5012; `-_-' "Have you hugged your wolf, today?"
jsharp@isis.cs.du.edu (Joe Sharp) (05/24/91)
I've been following this thread with interest the last few days. Theres been a lot of discussion over the validity of the patent, use of patent for monopoly, etc, but I haven't seen any news about what Everex, et al are doing about it. Are they throwing in the towel or are they appealing? Is Multitech settling or are they going ahead, despite the precedent? In comp.dcom.telecoms, the guy from Hayes is claiming that a lot of companies are now lining up to license the +++ 'technology'. Is this true? I'm not familiar with the actual details of the case, but the Hayes press release seem to indicate that the Judge threw the book at Everex et al. Did they really have such a bad case? or did they just get a non technical judge who may not fully understand the complexity, simplicity, or possible non-validity of the patent? Perhaps someone who is familiar with the case (other than Hayes Toby Nixon) could comment. Joe Sharp jsharp@isis.cs.du.edu
petrilli@geech.gnu.ai.mit.edu (Chris Petrilli) (05/24/91)
Joe Sharp writes: [... asks questions as to the status of lawsuit ...] In comp.dcom.telecoms, the guy from Hayes is claiming that a lot of companies are now lining up to license the +++ 'technology'. Is this true? I'm not familiar with the actual details of the case, but the Hayes press release seem to indicate that the Judge threw the book at Everex et al. Did they really have such a bad case? or did they just get a non technical judge who may not fully understand the complexity, simplicity, or possible non-validity of the patent? I have been off UseNet for a couple days (IBM RS/6000 died around here), but if previous lawsuits on 'look-and-feel' are any indication, the judge will (or has) thrown the book at them. The current status of the legal system has become so absurd that it isn't even funny any more (not that is was for very long, mind you). I have just about decided to produce a 1-2-3 clone with a Mac front end and give it to everyone. This continued L&F lawsuit happy world must stop... the FSF is threatened, as is the rest ofthe world. I was once told that the FSF threatened the free-world because we give away software, but I am quite convinced that if anything ,we are the saviours of the FREE-world. If Lotus, Hayes, MS, Apple and IBM all had their way (Xerox is in here too), you would have to license the right to live, as they would own the patent to life. This may seem absurd, but is it? Think about it... life is patentable, so what is stopping someone from doing it... seems prior knowledge and the fact that you had nothing to do with the creation of the idea is no longer necessary for a patent (see the claim of AT&T on backing-store which was created at Stanford and SRI, then at MIT, AT&T never really had anything to do with it.) If Mike Godwin is out there, please comment. Also, does anyone know if the LPF is getting involved in this case? I need to know... I'm a member, but haven't heard anything about it. Joe Sharp jsharp@isis.cs.du.edu Chris -- | Chris Petrilli | petrilli@gnu.ai.mit.edu | I don't even speak for myself.
kurt@pnet51.orb.mn.org (Kurt Sletterdahl) (05/24/91)
I checked with the SYSOP of the MultiTech support BBS the other day, and they
have not as yet settled with Hayes.
A Hayes press release states that most members of the Modem Patent Defense
Group settled with them prior to the San Francisco trial. This turned out to
be a prudent move on their part. :-)
UUCP: {amdahl!bungia, uunet!rosevax, crash}!orbit!pnet51!kurt
ARPA: crash!orbit!pnet51!kurt@nosc.mil
INET: kurt@pnet51.orb.mn.orgpeter@ficc.ferranti.com (Peter da Silva) (05/24/91)
In article <PETRILLI.91May24005253@geech.gnu.ai.mit.edu> petrilli@geech.gnu.ai.mit.edu (Chris Petrilli) writes: > I was once told that the FSF threatened the free-world because we give > away software... Neither extreme, Apple nor the FSF, hold a position that is desirable for the rest of us. But I must admit that Apple/hayes/RSA/et al are currently a greater threat... -- Peter da Silva; Ferranti International Controls Corporation; +1 713 274 5180; Sugar Land, TX 77487-5012; `-_-' "Have you hugged your wolf, today?"
mitchell@MDI.COM (Bill Mitchell) (05/24/91)
In article <FPIBN-2@xds13.ferranti.com> peter@ficc.ferranti.com (Peter da Silva) writes: >In article <1991May17.222410.26944@MDI.COM> mitchell@MDI.COM (Bill Mitchell) writes: >> Be fair now. > >Hard to do with my complexion. > >> The +++ mechanism allowed users and application writers to manipulate >> the modem without having to worry about how to twiddle hardware control >> lines. If you could talk _thru_ the modem, you could talk _to_ the >> modem. > >Like I said, it's a kludge that covers for an inadequate programming >interface to the hardware. Yup. That's what it is. Just what is needed when you attach the modem you've purchased from the modem hardware supplier to the computer system you purchased from a supplier who delivered it without any specific programming interface to that particular modem, and perhaps without any provision in the software or the hardware to manipulate modem control lines. You can use the hayes from the moment of installation if you have any kind of serial communications software (kermit, tip, cu, etc. on unix; kermit, telix, procomm, etc. on PC; kermit on most anything else) which allows you to connect your keyboard & display thru the computer to the modem. If the modem requires DTR/RTS to be twiddled and the hardware supports that, you may be able to use it once you've done some programming. You may have to throw out the communications program which you've been using to connect to external systems or devices thru hardwired serial lines if it doesn't support access to whatever provisions you implement to twiddle RTS/DTR and write or acquire one which does and retrain your users to operate the new program and redo existing applications using the old communications program to use the new one instead, but what the heck. Of course if your computer system hardware does not support manipulation of DTR/RTS lines at all you may have to upgrade it with new serial cards to make it compatable with your spiffy new modem, or perhaps just junk the whole system and buy one which is compatable with the modem. ............. In another recent article, gandrews@netcom.COM (Greg Andrews) writes: >[...] >several people have asked "why use the +++ escape when you can >use a Break or DTR instead?", and I'd like to bring up a point about >that. Your article was just the latest one I've seen on the topic - I'm >not really replying to your points directly. > >Probably the major reason for having a character-based signal to the modem >rather than using DTR or a Break is two-fold, and it's apparent when you >consider the state of modem communications when the Hayes modem was being >developed (mid-to-late 70's?): > > a) The same reason async communications became so popular in the first > place. You only need three wires in your cable and the circuitry for > async is correspondingly simpler and cheaper to design in computer > equipment. > > b) The entities who needed to grab control of the modem were people and > not machines, thus the mechanism needed to be something a human could > perform while using any of the popular terminals of the time. > >In short, if your terminal doesn't let you manipulate DTR or a Break signal >comfortably, then those methods will be useless. That was a very common >situation with terminals in those days. > >If you can't use an RS232 control signal or a Break signal, then you're >stuck with the normal keyboard characters available on standard terminals. >Therefore the choice of the plus sign as the default character, and the >need for an unusual interaction to signal your desire to chat with the modem. -- mitchell@mdi.com (Bill Mitchell)
petrilli@geech.gnu.ai.mit.edu (Chris Petrilli) (05/25/91)
Kurt Sletterdahl writes: I checked with the SYSOP of the MultiTech support BBS the other day, and they have not as yet settled with Hayes. A Hayes press release states that most members of the Modem Patent Defense Group settled with them prior to the San Francisco trial. This turned out to be a prudent move on their part. :-) How is this prudent? I am assuming they decided to pay Hayes, or am I compeltely wrong in what settling is? (this is sarcasm) If they have indeed settled, and MultiTech does also, then something is wrong. The Hayes lawsuit can never stand. As I recall, copyrights, trademarks, and patents will all be invalidated if undefended. The Hayes 'standard' has been around for about 10 years, which is much longer than necessary to invalidate a patent/trademark/copyright. Also, I destinctively remember Hayes encouraging people to use their command set. They were like IBM, they knew taht alone they couldn't survive. In my opinion, this suit is due to ONE reason. Hayes is falling down and knows they aren't even near competitive anymore. They decided that since they can't make money selling modems for outrageous prices, tehy would try and survive by suing. This is a classic example of what is wrong with American business, and why this country will fall to Japan or the EC if it doesn't change soon. Chris -- | Chris Petrilli | petrilli@gnu.ai.mit.edu | I don't even speak for myself.
sef@kithrup.COM (Sean Eric Fagan) (05/25/91)
In article <PETRILLI.91May24235803@geech.gnu.ai.mit.edu> petrilli@geech.gnu.ai.mit.edu (Chris Petrilli) writes: >The Hayes lawsuit can never stand. *BZZT* Wrong answer, but thanks for playing! It's already *stood*, and the people involved in the lawsuit were required to pay Hayes a lot of money. >As I recall, >copyrights, trademarks, and patents will all be invalidated if >undefended. *BZZT* Wrong answer, but thanks for playing! A patent is valid its entire lifetime, even if it is never enforced or advertised. Meaning that, after 16 years, you can go and get everyone whose used whatever your patent covers, and I think you even stand a chance of getting retroactive royalties (although Dan would know more about this than I). >Also, I destinctively remember Hayes >encouraging people to use their command set. This, on the other hand, *is* grounds to dismiss the patent infringement suits: if Hayes actively encouraged people to use their command set, without stipulation of royalties, then there is a lot of precedent (mostly in Common Law) to prevent them from exteorting any royalties, ever. >Hayes is falling down >and knows they aren't even near competitive anymore. Sadly, I think this is the case with many american companies. In particular, I might have been willing to buy a Mac, at one point, because it is more usable for certain things than other machine. But I won't, because of Apple's ligitious larceny. Well, that's at least one customer they lost. -- Sean Eric Fagan | "I made the universe, but please don't blame me for it; sef@kithrup.COM | I had a bellyache at the time." -----------------+ -- The Turtle (Stephen King, _It_) Any opinions expressed are my own, and generally unpopular with others.
jsharp@isis.cs.du.edu (Joe Sharp) (05/25/91)
In article <PETRILLI.91May24235803@geech.gnu.ai.mit.edu> petrilli@geech.gnu.ai.mit.edu (Chris Petrilli) writes: >Kurt Sletterdahl writes: [stuff deleted..] >In my opinion, this suit is due to ONE reason. Hayes is falling down >and knows they aren't even near competitive anymore. They decided >that since they can't make money selling modems for outrageous prices, >tehy would try and survive by suing. This is a classic example of >what is wrong with American business, and why this country will fall >to Japan or the EC if it doesn't change soon. > I'm inclined to agree with you 100%. Hayes should compete with these companies where it counts, in product features, quality and value. Joe Sharp jsharp@isis.cs.du.edu
Mario_Capellari@turtle.stgt.sub.org (Mario Capellari) (05/26/91)
test
-- Via DLG Pro v0.97b
mario capellari | BBS`s for Amiga greetings....
7000 Stuttgart 1 | ++49 711 6407689 the
FRG | ++49 711 6498429 TurtleSystems
| 24h a day
UseNet:mario_capellari@turtle.stgt.sub.org |apollo@pro-hindugods.cts.com (Amrit Chauhan) (05/26/91)
In-Reply-To: message from petrilli@geech.gnu.ai.mit.edu
Can someone please give a real quick overview of the lawsuit. I
just picked up this feed and don't know what it's about.
Amrit
==The Hindu Love Gods BBS - - - - Bloomfield Hills, MI - - - - 313/644-0481===
ProLine:apollo@pro-hindugods | Internet: apollo@pro-hindugods.cts.com |
UUCP: crash!pro-hindugods!apollo | ARPA: crash!pro-hindugods!apollo@nosc.mil |
==============================================================================mike.riddle@uunet.uu.net (Mike Riddle) (05/26/91)
In <1991May26.044320.5542@clark.edu> apollo@pro-hindugods.cts.com (Amrit Chauhan) writes: >In-Reply-To: message from petrilli@geech.gnu.ai.mit.edu > Can someone please give a real quick overview of the lawsuit. I >just picked up this feed and don't know what it's about. Hayes holds a patent which includes "escape guard time sequence" if I remember it right. This is part of a larger patent and is either a software patent or is in the interstitial area where software and hardware intersect. From a public policy perspective, the difference is important. The area of software patents is unsettled. The question is necessary because, arguably, copyright doesn't adequately protect the intellectual property of the commercial software author. If it did, then it might be bad, since copyright protection lasts a /long/ time. Patent protection, on the other hand, lasts only 17 years. While that's arguably still too long for an empheral area like software, it's better than the lifetime or 75 years afforded by copyright. Of course, both patent and copyright require some uniqueness and originality. What is original then may not seem original now, and whether it was original enough then may be open to dispute. In the Hayes case, apparently for commercial economic reasons, most modem vendors seem to license the technology from Hayes rather than risk a fight. Hayes appears to grant a non-exclusive license for a commerically reasonable fee. Some vendors sued to invalidate the patent. Hayes filed a response supporting the patent and counter-sued for infringement. The district court threw out the vendors' suit, holding the patent was clearly legal (or more likely that there was substantial evidence to support the decision of the Patent and Trademark Office--this is speculation since I've only seen reports of the decision, not the decision itself). Then the jury ruled for Hayes on the infringement, and the judge applied that portion of the law allowing double damages as punitive damages. The issue becomes controversial because we have no legal form of protection for intellectual property that really seems suitable for software, at least not from a policy perspective. If you grant that Hayes made an original contribution, you still can argue or agree that 17 years (patent) is too long to grant exclusivity. The contribution to the art, given the rate of change in computer technology, seems to require a shorter period. Since the Congress has not acted, the Courts have been creative in trying to adapt the current statutory law to meet the perceived needs. There is a good discussion of the policy issues and the state of the U.S. law concerning them and copyright/patent protection for software in Styrcula, The Adequacy of Copyright Protection for Computer Software in the European Community 1992: A critical Analysis of the EC's Draft Directive, Jurimetrics Journal of Law, Science and Technology, Spring, 1991 (available at most law libraries). Note that the Hayes decision is still subject to appeal, so many or most of the principals will not comment. Most of the discussion, including this post, is based on bits and pieces accumulated from a variety of sources and is subject to modification. Most of the discussion is heavily overlaid with personal feelings on the policy issue, and thus rarely addresses the legal correctness of the current decision. The one thing most commentators might agree on is that the law concerning software protection is a mess, generates excessive profits for the brotherhood of lawyers, and should be addressed by Congress. As for me, if they can't solve an easy problem like the national debt, how will they ever understand or fix this one? Please remember the standard disclaimer: No one, including me, can claim responsibility for what I say. -- <<<< insert standard disclaimer here >>>> riddle@hoss.unl.edu | Nebraska Inns of Court ivgate!inns!postmaster@uunet.uu.net | +1 402 593 1192 Sysop of 1:285/27@Fidonet | 3/12/24/9600/8N1/V.32/V.42bis
kurt@pnet51.orb.mn.org (Kurt Sletterdahl) (05/27/91)
I find it hard to blame Hayes for this suit, when the litigation was
in fact initiated by the Modem Patent Defense Group in 1985.
Yes, I think it was prudent for most of the Modem Patent Defense Group
to settle prior to trial; rather than to lose a multi-million dollar
suit for willful patent infringement and to be slapped with punitive
damages and attorney fees. There is always a chance that the decision
will be reversed on appeal, but the initial decision seemed to be very
decisive.
The modem marketplace is very competitive, and Hayes' nominal
licensing fee has done nothing to change that fact. Since you hate
Hayes so much, a fashionable position <grin>, make sure that the next
modem that you buy is made by Practical Peripherals. <bigger grin>
IMHO, international competitiveness is dependant on invention and
innovation; and the ability to take these and develop marketable
products. (It seems all too often that the US makes the initial
invention, and then abandons it to be developed into a marketable
product by Japan.) Does Everex, for example, do much more than to cost
effectively assemble parts that were invented elsewhere?
I am not directly of indirectly associated with Hayes.
UUCP: {amdahl!bungia, uunet!rosevax, crash}!orbit!pnet51!kurt
ARPA: crash!orbit!pnet51!kurt@nosc.mil
INET: kurt@pnet51.orb.mn.orgpetrilli@geech.gnu.ai.mit.edu (Chris Petrilli) (05/28/91)
Kurt Sletterdahl writes: I find it hard to blame Hayes for this suit, when the litigation was in fact initiated by the Modem Patent Defense Group in 1985. Yes, I think it was prudent for most of the Modem Patent Defense Group to settle prior to trial; rather than to lose a multi-million dollar suit for willful patent infringement and to be slapped with punitive damages and attorney fees. There is always a chance that the decision will be reversed on appeal, but the initial decision seemed to be very decisive. The problem is that the people who settled seem to be admitting guilt, which, IMHO, is not true. The patent covers software, which I do not believe is patentable, hence my hatered for this and all softare lawsuits. The modem marketplace is very competitive, and Hayes' nominal licensing fee has done nothing to change that fact. Since you hate Hayes so much, a fashionable position <grin>, make sure that the next modem that you buy is made by Practical Peripherals. <bigger grin> It is the idea of a licensing fee that bothers me... this is once again strengthening the precedent of software lawsuits. What if Hays decides taht they want a $40/modem fee for thier command set, which might be covered my another patent (lord only knows), then is it still OK? Hard to compete when you are paying $40 just in licensing fees, yet the hardware only costs $10 to make. IMHO, international competitiveness is dependant on invention and innovation; and the ability to take these and develop marketable products. (It seems all too often that the US makes the initial invention, and then abandons it to be developed into a marketable product by Japan.) Does Everex, for example, do much more than to cost effectively assemble parts that were invented elsewhere? NO..NO..NO! This is the idealogy that has caused the current problems. Invention is not necessarily a GOOD THING. I have seen many inventions that are not worth the paper they are printed on. Isn't it better to improve than to re-invent. You must take a look at what is currently being done, and decide if it is good, rather than immediately throw it out because it's not new. Invention consumes alot of resources that could be directed toward refinement of ideas. Take Emacs for example... considered by MANY to be the BEST editor in the world, and yet it dates from the days of PDP-1s and TECO. Obviously re-invention is not necessarily the best way to make advances. I am not directly of indirectly associated with Hayes. I'de hope not... but you do seem to excuse them for what they've done. Chris -- | Chris Petrilli | petrilli@gnu.ai.mit.edu | I don't even speak for myself.
mike.riddle@uunet.uu.net (Mike Riddle) (05/28/91)
In <PETRILLI.91May27153903@geech.gnu.ai.mit.edu> petrilli@geech.gnu.ai.mit.edu (Chris Petrilli) writes: >The problem is that the people who settled seem to be admitting guilt, >which, IMHO, is not true. The patent covers software, which I do not >believe is patentable, hence my hatered for this and all softare >lawsuits. Well, I can understand your policy argument, but the Patent and Trademark Office has in fact been issuing software patents for at least a few years now. Whether you or I agree with the policy, Hayes has a duty to its owners to preserve its legal rights. Your argument is best addressed at the PTO or Congress. Given that, note that the PTO this very month issued a request for public comments on this area. I would recommend that /anyone/ with thoughts on this subject respond to the PTO. This is a much more productive method than (as some have done) blaming Hayes for pursing its legal options. ///begin quote//// 56 FR 22702-02 NOTICES DEPARTMENT OF COMMERCE Patent and Trademark Office Request for Comments for the Advisory Commission on Patent Law Reform Thursday, May 16, 1991 AGENCY: Patent and Trademark Office, Commerce. ACTION: Notice; request for public comments. SUMMARY: The Advisory Commission on Patent Law Reform Commission will be submitting a report to the Secretary of Commerce by August 1992 on the state of, and the need for, any reform in the United States patent system. To ensure that the Commission recommenda- tions represent a true consensus of the American public and the patent user community, public comments are invited on the issues to be considered by the Commission. DATES: Written Comments must be submitted by July 15, 1991. ADDRESSES: Submit written comments to E.R. Kazenske, Executive Assistant to the Commissioner, U.S. Patent and Trademark Office, Box 15, Washington, DC 20231. FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT:Jeff Kushan, Commission Special- ist, or Paul Salmon, Commission Specialist; U.S. Patent and Trademark Office, Box 15, Washington, DC 20231. Phone: (703) 557-3071. SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: The Commission requests public comments on the issues set forth below. Each issue should be individually addressed. Submissions should be concise statements of position, including supporting material where relevant, and should be limited to the questions framing each issue. All submissions must include the name and/or professional affiliation of the contributor. To ensure full consideration by the Commission, the submissions should be received by July 15, 1991. I. Protection of Computer Related Inventions The principal issue to be examined is whether the current U.S. patent laws provide adequate and appropriate protection of novel computer program-related inventions. The relationship of patent protection for computer program-related inventions to other forms of intellectual property protection will also be considered. (a) What problems, if any, exist in the current framework of laws which protect computer-related inventions (b) What changes, if any, should be made in the domestic and international systems for protection of computer-related inventions (c) The Supreme Court has found that new and useful computer program-related inventions are eligible for patent protection. What rationale, if any, exists in law or policy for Congress to now remove patent protection for this field of science and technology (d) What evidence exists, if any, that patents issued on new and useful computer program-related inventions do or do not provide an incentive to conduct research and development on new products, and that such patents do or do not promote the development of new technology (e) What conflict or overlap is created by the existence of a patent for a new and useful computer program-related invention and either (1) a copyright for original expression embodied in the computer program fixed therein, or (2) a mask work in the inven- tion; and if any exists, is it harmful or helpful (f) Should Congress legislate the boundary for patents in the computer program area, or is it preferable to permit the courts to continue to define the outer boundary (g) Are the tests of patentability for computer program-related inventions implemented by the USPTO in the notice published in the Official Gazette on August 9, 1989, consistent with the patent statute and/or court decisions If there are inconsistencies, what are they (h) What concrete steps should be taken, if necessary, to revise the PTO examination procedure for computer program-related inventions in order to achieve high-quality issued patents, particularly with respect to: 1. Providing patent examiners with complete, up-to-date prior art; 2. Providing patent examiners with training in this field to raise/maintain their expertise; 3. Recognizing computer science as a "science" for the purpose of qualification to take the PTO registration examination and recruiting computer scientists as patent examiners; 4. Providing an optimum system of classification to maximize the searchability of inventions in this field; and 5. Taking steps to reduce the PTO pendency time for patent applications in this field (i) What procedures, not currently available, should be consid- ered to correct problems caused by improperly granted patents (i.e., post grant oppositions, court nullification), and how would these procedures particularly relate to computer program-related inventions II. Federal Protection for Trade Secrets Trade Secret statutes now exist only at the state level, and are not uniform in the states wherein they exist. The principal issue to be examined is whether Federal Statutory protection should be enacted and if so, how it should relate to state statutes (a) Is there a need for a Federal law on trade secrets What problems have been caused by the absence of such a law What problems would such a law create (b) If there is need for a Federal trade secrets law, on what legal theories (i.e., tort, contract, etc.) should it be based How should it relate to state laws and to what extent, if any, should it preempt state laws (c) If there are specific areas of trade secrets that are inadequately protected by present state laws or by their nature cannot be adequately protected by state laws, would it be possible to enact Federal laws in those areas only, leaving to state law what is currently adequately protected Would such a bifurcated system create more problems that it would solve III. Cost and Complexity of Patent Enforcement Although many patents are enforced through negotiation, resort is frequently made to either litigation in the Federal district courts or to arbitration or one of several other forms of alterna- tive dispute resolution (ADR). Patent litigation is said to be complex, expensive, unpredictable and heavily dependent on the ability of the judge to exert fair and effective control. Arbitration and other forms of ADR would seem to offer significant advantages in many types of dispute, but are not frequently used. (a) Is the cost of patent enforcement too high If so, what can be done within the existing Federal Rules to achieve determinations of validity, infringement and damages more efficiently and economically Which, if any, of the Federal Rules should be changed to improve patent litigation, and how Would provisions in the Civil Justice Reform Act of 1990 improve patent litigation (b) Is there a need for a "small claims" type of patent proceed- ing in the Federal courts, with simplified procedures and limited recovery If so, describe the characteristics such a proceeding should have, e.g., how procedures would be simplified, what the limits on recovery should be, etc. (c) Should the use of arbitration and other forms of ADR be increased How What, if any, deterrents are there to using ADR and how can they be overcome What additional forms of ADR should be considered for patent disputes IV. Grounds for Holding Patents Unenforceable In the United States, a party charged with infringement of a patent can raise an equitable defense of unenforceability which, if sustained, may preclude exercise of the patent rights even though the patent is valid and infringed. Historically, the defense has usually been based on alleged misconduct occurring after the patent is granted, e.g., restrictive conditions in patent licensing agreements. In more recent years, conduct before the Patent and Trademark Office has frequently been claimed to give rise to the defense, e.g., misrepresentations or alleged failure to comply with the standard for disclosing to the Office information in the patent applicant's possession. Such claims, some argue, are often frivolous and unsupported. (a) What are the benefits and drawbacks of permitting an unenforceability defense in patent litigation, based on alleged misconduct either before or after patent grant (b) Should any change be made in the present Patent and Trademark Office standard relating to the submission of prior art informa- tion, recognizing the need of the Office to consider information bearing on patentability before the patent issues (c) Are existing judicial procedures and standards for resolving unenforceability defenses adequate If not, is legislation desirable and, if so, what kind Discuss any other changes believed desirable. (d) Once inequitable conduct has been found, whether based on conduct before or after grant, is unenforceability the appropriate remedy If not, what other types of remedies might be applied and in what types of situations V. Licensee Challenges to Patent Validity Since 1969, when the U.S. Supreme Court in Lear v. Adkins, 395 U.S. 653, abrogated the doctrine of licensee estoppel, the courts have been dealing ad hoc with a variety of issues flowing from that decision. These include the right of the patent owner to terminate the license agreement and sue for patent infringement, the right of the licensee to recover royalties should the patent be declared invalid, the extent to which the parties should be permitted to contract in advance for the various eventualities, etc. It is asserted by some that this has created considerable uncertainty. Some would provide for all post-Lear eventualities by statute. Others would permit a licensor and licensee to bargain for provisions necessary to protect their respective interests. (a) Is legislation desirable to clarify the results of the Lear decision If so, what should it provide (b) Should any restraints, beyond the normal law of contracts, be imposed on the rights of licensee and licensor to bargain for the results of a potential challenge by the licensee of the licensed patent's validity IV. First-to-File System In the United States patent system, when more than one patent application is filed claiming the same invention, the patent is awarded to the applicant who establishes the earliest acts of invention in the United States and who has not thereafter sup- pressed, abandoned or concealed his invention ("first-to-invent" system). In international treaty negotiations aimed at more uniform patent laws throughout the world, particularly the World Intellectual Property Organization (WIPO) patent harmonization proceedings, the United States is being urged to adopt a different procedure, almost universally used in other countries, under which we would award the patent to the first applicant to file a patent application for the invention ("first-to-file" system). The principal issue presented is whether the United States should change from a first-to- invent procedure to a first-to-file procedure (1) only as part of a comprehensive treaty to harmonize all of the world's patent systems, (2) without regard to a harmonization treaty, or (3) not at all. The following questions are designed to help frame this issue: (a) What benefits do United States patent holders and the public realize from the first-to-invent procedure What detriments are there, particularly those that might not be addressed by further simplification of the procedure to determine priority of inventor- ship (b) What benefits are United States patent holders and the public expected to realize from a first-to-file procedure What deteriments should be expected (c) What benefits are United States patent holders and the public expected to realize from a harmonization treaty What detriments should be expected (d) If the United States retains the first-to-invent procedure, a partial step toward harmonization could be a change permitting applicants to establish dates of invention by reference to knowledge, or sue, or other activity in foreign countries in addition to such activities in the United States. Should such an expansion of admissible evidence of inventorship be adopted (1) only as part of a comprehensive treaty to harmonize all of the world's patent systems, (2) without regard to a harmoniza- tion treaty, or (3) not at all Should such an expansion of admissible evidence of inventorship be adopted (1) only in respect to foreign countries that provide for practicable and effective judicial discovery of foreign inventorship activity, (2) only on a limited basis reflecting credibility of the foreign evidence, or (3) without regard to the legal procedures available in foreign countries (e) If the United States adopts a first-to-file procedure, should it condition this adoption on a grace period during which activi- ties of the inventor or derived through the inventor will not be a bar to patentability by the inventor Should the oath and its attendant sanctions be strengthened in respect to the requirement of originality (f) If the United States adopts a first-to-file procedure, would it be desirable to codify the rights, if any, of a prior user of the invention If so, should such a user have (1) no defense or rights in respect to the subsequent patent, (2) a personal exemption to continue existing commercial use, or (3) some other right Should the prior user rights, if any, extend to one not an actual user, but who has made effective and serious preparations for such use Should it matter if the prior user had elected to practice the invention as a trade secret Should any prior user right be transferrable to someone else Should any such right extend only to use in the United States (a feature in other patent systems) Should any prior user right extend to such users who were not originators of the invention (g) Would a first-to-file patent procedure run afoul of the reference to "inventors" in Article I, Section 8, Clause 8 of the Constitution VII. Automatic Publication of Applications In the United States patent system, patent applications are held in confidence by the Patent and Trademark Office and not published until a patent is granted. Patent rights begin on the date of grant. In international treaty negotiations aimed at more uniform patent laws throughout the world, it has been proposed that patent applications be published and confer provisional protection commencing on the date of publication. The Japanese and European patent systems provide for publication of patent applications 18 months after their effective filing dates and feature provisional protection, generally a right to compensation from infringers with actual notice. The principal issue is whether United States patent applications should be published before grant of a patent (1) only as part of a comprehensive system to harmonize all of the world's patent system, (2) without regard to a harmonization treaty, or (3) not at all. The following questions are designed to help frame this issue: (a) What benefit do United States patent holders and the public realize from keeping patent applications confidential until a patent is granted What are the detriments (b) What benefits are United States patent holders and the public expected to realize from a procedure requiring automatic publica- tion of patent applications What are the detriments (c) Should U.S. patent applications be published by some fixed time measured from their U.S. or foreign priority filing dates Does the need for a pre-grant publication differ depending upon whether patent terms are measured from filing date or issue date (d) If pre-grant publication becomes part of the U.S. patent system, is there a need for provisional protection starting from the date of publication Does the need for provisional protection depend upon how the term of the patent is measured (e) If provisional protection is appropriate, what should it include VIII. Patent Term In the United States patent system the term of a patent is 17 years from the date when the patent is granted. Many other countries provide a 20-year term for their patents from the date when the application for the patent was filed. The appropriate term for a patent is under consideration in negotiations aimed at more uniform patent laws throughout the world, as well as in the negotiations on the Trade-Related Aspects of Intellectual Property (TRIPs) in the current General Agreement on Tariffs and Trade (GATT) Round. The principal issue is whether the United States should measure the life of a patent from the date when the application for it was filed (1) only as part of comprehensive treaties to harmonize all of the world's patent systems, (2) without regard to harmonization treaties, or (3) not at all. The following questions are designed to help frame this issue. (a) What benefits do United States patent holders and the public realize from measuring the life of a patent from its date of grant What detriments are there (b) What benefits are United States patent holders and the public expected to realize from a procedure that would measure the life of a patent from its filing date What would the detriments be (c) If the term of a United States patent is to be measured from the filing date, should the term be extended to compensate for delays due to (1) secrecy orders, (2) marketing delays due to FDA or EPA regulatory procedures, (3) NASA or DOE ownership proceed- ings, (4) appeals, or (5) any other delays outside of the control of the patent applicant (d) Should a United States patent application be permitted to rely upon the date of more than one foreign-filed application for priority, and, if so, should the term of the United States patent be measured from the earliest priority date (recognizing that a modification of the Paris Convention probably would be necessary for adoption of any procedure to measure the life of a patent from any foreign priority date) (e) If the term of a United States patent is to be measured from a filing date, should that date be (1) the earliest United States filing upon which priority is based, (2) the earliest filing upon which priority is based, be it foreign or United States filing date, or (3) the filing date of the application on which the patent is granted (f) If the United States adopts a patent term based upon a filing date, should that term be 20 years If not, how long should the term be IX. Deferred Examination United States patent laws permit an applicant to petition for a deferral of the examination process only for a short period, and then only for "good and sufficient cause." Deferred examination at the option of the applicant is a feature of several foreign patent systems. (a) What would be the benefits of a procedure whereby a patent application is not examined in due course, but instead, the applicant is given the option, for a period of years, to request that the application be examined What would be the detriments (b) If optional deferred examination were adopted, what necessary or desirable companion changes (such as mandatory publication of applications) should be made, if any, in the United States patent law or procedures Should a third party have the right to request examination (c) If optional deferred examination were adopted, should a patent application be deemed abandoned if the applicant fails to request examination within a fixed time after filing Should the applicant be permitted thereafter to re-file an application for the same invention (d) Should the applicant have the option, in lieu of requesting formal examination, to obtain a lower-cost patent of shortened term and reduced enforcement rights X. In re Hilmer Under the interpretation of United States patent law in the case of In re Hilmer (and other cases), a United States patent has a patent-defeating effect (becomes a "reference") as of the earliest filing date in the United States to which it is entitled, but not the earliest foreign filing date to which it is entitled. In other patent systems, patents or applications are effective as references as of their earliest filing date, be it domestic or foreign. (a) If the effective date of a United States patent as a reference should be based on a foreign application filing date, should that foreign priority date be the effective date for anticipation purposes only and not for obviousness purposes so that the Hilmer rule is partially retained in that the United States patents with a foreign priority date are effective only as a reference for obviousness purposes as of the filing date in the United States (b) Is there rationale for abolishing the Hilmer rule totally so that foreign- origin United States patents will be effective as references for all purposes as of their foreign priority filing dates (c) What changes in procedure, if any, should the Patent and Trademark Office adopt to ensure adequate consideration of the disclosures in foreign-origin United States patents in the examination of United States patent applications (d) Should bilateral reciprocity be applied when deciding whether or not a United States patent is entitled to an earlier foreign filing priority date in a particular country for reference purposes XI. Reexamination The reexamination statute permits any person to file, with the requisite fee, a request for the reexamination of a patent in view of prior art limited to prior patents and printed publications. Issues of inequitable conduct, public use and sale, and the like, may not be addressed in reexamination. If the USPTO determines that the request raises "a substantial new question of patentability," the patent is reexamined under the same procedures applicable to the examination of new applications and concludes with the issuance of a reexamination certificate. The reexamina- tion process is basically ex parte in nature, with very limited participation by a third party requestor. Since the present system of reexamination was established by Congress in 1980, there have been numerous proposals to modify reexamination to increase the degree of participation of the requestor and/or to enlarge the scope of reexamination. (a) Do you believe the present reexamination system is working effectively If not, identify each deficiency that you believe exists in the system. (b) Do you believe that the present reexamination system should be modified to permit complete inter partes participation by a protestor at all phases of the reexamination proceeding If so, explain why. If not, explain why. (c) If your answer to question (b) is "no," to what extent, if any, should third parties be allowed greater participation than at present in reexamination proceedings (d) Would you be in favor of modifying the present reexamination system to permit or require one or more of the following: (1) Permitting a reexamination petitioner other than the patentee to comment on any claims in their finally allowed form, so as to provide the examiner with the petitioner's views prior to a final decision as to whether to issue a reexamination certificate (2) Permitting a reexamination petitioner to appeal both to the PTO Board of Patent Appeals and Interferences and to the Federal Circuit from any final decision favorable to a patentee in a reexamination proceeding (3) Conditioning the appeal noted in subparagraph (2) on the petitioner's agreement to forego litigating in any other forum any issue raised or which could have been raised on appeal (4) Precluding an accused infringer from relying as a defense on any prior art of printed publication unless that prior art or printed publication has been previously considered by the PTO either during the original prosecution of a patent or in a reissue or reexamination proceeding involving that patent (5) Precluding a party or its privies, against whom a judgment of invalidity of a patent claim or claims has been entered, from seeking or maintaining reexamination of that claim or claims (6) Requiring that claims of a reexamined application be construed under the same standards as those claims would be construed in a district court infringement proceeding (e) Should the scope of issues considered by the examiner during reexamination be broadened If so, how (e.g., by permitting consideration of public use or on sale bars, section 112 issues, inequitable conduct, etc.) (f) In what other ways, if any, should reexamination proceedings be changed XII. Assignee Filing of Applications The United States currently requires the actual inventor or inventors to file patent applications, subject to a few limited exceptions such as death, unavailability, or insanity. Each application must be accompanied by an oath from the actual inventor which states that the applicant believes he was the first to invent the claimed invention. Nearly all foreign patent systems permit the owner of an invention (whether the actual inventor or the assignee) to file the patent application without an oath signed by the inventor. (a) Should the United States allow filing of patent applications by assignees (b) What benefits and drawbacks would occur by allowing filing of patent applications by assignees (c) What contours should an assignee filing proposal have, including possible safeguards for inventors and the public XIII. PTO Funding and Fee Structure The Patent and Trademark Office historically recovered its costs through a combination of fees and funding from general tax revenues. The major patent fees are filing fees, and issue and maintenance fees in a two-tier system with lower rates for small entities. These fees have undergone substantial increases recently as Congress and the Administration have changed from a policy under which applicants and patent owners paid only a portion of these costs to one under which they pay full costs. (a) What impact, if any, will a system in which PTO costs are almost entirely user-fee funded have on (1) U.S. inventors generally, (2) on small entities, including independent inventors, and (3) the public (b) What realistic and practical alternatives can you suggest, other than user-fee funding, for funding PTO operations (c) Congress historically has provided fiscal oversight for the PTO. Will this attention by Congress continue at the same level in the absence of a significant allocation of taxpayer funds and, if not, what other fiscal oversight is appropriate (d) Should the more public-oriented functions of the PTO, e.g., public search room operations, be funded by user fees, or should such operations be supported by appropriated funds (e) Would it be desirable to increase the average application pendency time in the PTO to a level above 18 months if such increase permitted a significant reduction in PTO fees (f) What are the advantages and disadvantages of retaining a two-tier fee structure (g) Should large entities subsidize small entities in a two-tier structure, or should public funds be used to supplement small entity fees (h) As part of a two-tier fee structure, what would the pros and cons be of (1) redefining a small entity to include fewer than 500 employees, (2) providing a tax credit (e.g., 50%) in lieu of part or all of the 50% subsidy for small entities, (3) denying 50% subsidy benefits, on a need basis, to small entities who receive a defined minimum (e.g., $200,000) in technology transfer fees during the preceding year, and (4) imposing a flat (e.g., 10%) across-the- board fee increase if this permitted the continuance of the current small entity reduced fee structure (i) A major current cost of the PTO is that of automating the search files and system. How should this cost be recovered, if not through fees (j) Is there a mechanism in the Government for long-term investments, such as computer equipment, to be capitalized and paid off over their useful life Would it be possible and desirable to have such investments paid for by a bond over a period of years (e.g., 20 years) instead of by user fees) Should the current relation among filing, issue and maintenance fees be changed and, if so, how Are there other fee strategies which will better balance the need to recover costs and the need to keep the patent system accessible to inventors (k) Should the current relation among filing, issue and mainte- nance fees be changed and, if so, how Are there other fee strate- gies which will better balance the need to recover costs and the need to keep the patent system accessible to inventors (l) In discussions of patent harmonization, the question of pre-issuance publication of U.S. patents has been raised. Given the possible reluctance of Congress to fund the costs of such publication from general revenues, would you support such publica- tion if its cost were totally user-funded Dated: May 8, 1991. Harry F. Manbeck, Jr., Assistant Secretary of Commerce and Commissioner of Patents and Trademarks. 56 FR 22702-02 -- <<<< insert standard disclaimer here >>>> riddle@hoss.unl.edu | Nebraska Inns of Court ivgate!inns!postmaster@uunet.uu.net | +1 402 593 1192 Sysop of 1:285/27@Fidonet | 3/12/24/9600/8N1/V.32/V.42bis
petrilli@geech.gnu.ai.mit.edu (Chris Petrilli) (05/28/91)
Mike Riddle writes: Chris Petrilli writes: >The problem is that the people who settled seem to be admitting >guilt, which, IMHO, is not true. The patent covers software, >which I do not believe is patentable, hence my hatered for this >and all softare lawsuits. Well, I can understand your policy argument, but the Patent and Trademark Office has in fact been issuing software patents for at least a few years now. Whether you or I agree with the policy, Hayes has a duty to its owners to preserve its legal rights. It is this policy however that is based on legally shakey ground. The entire policy of the PTO is based on _Diamond v. Deihr_, which did not specifically permit software patents, but on the other hand did not invalidate a patent becuase a small part of it included softare. The exact decision was that 'the use of a program in the process is not enough to render the patent nullified.' This does not say software is patentable, but that software, by itself does not cause a patent to be invalidated. (See CACM, August 1990). Your argument is best addressed at the PTO or Congress. Given that, note that the PTO this very month issued a request for public comments on this area. I have sent various letters to both the PTO and Congress (my reps), but have not received a response of any sort (what representation of the public!). I will continue to persist, but I do not believe that the Congress or PTO are qualified to make a decision on software. Polls have shown that roughly 90% of all programs do not belive patents are in the best interest of the industry, it is the accounting department that wants the patent. I would recommend that /anyone/ with thoughts on this subject respond to the PTO. This is a much more productive method than (as some have done) blaming Hayes for pursing its legal options. Agreed. Chris -- | Chris Petrilli | petrilli@gnu.ai.mit.edu | I don't even speak for myself.
mju@mudos.ann-arbor.mi.us (Marc Unangst) (05/28/91)
kurt@pnet51.orb.mn.org (Kurt Sletterdahl) writes: > product by Japan.) Does Everex, for example, do much more than to cost > effectively assemble parts that were invented elsewhere? Um, Everex is a U.S. company based in California. And yes, they do more than assemble parts invented elsewhere -- they design and manufacture their own motherboards and some of their expansion cards and peripherals; other expansion cards and peripherals are OEM'd from another manufacturer. (They use Seagate hard drives and Wangtek tape drives, for example.) However, if you look at an Everex STEP computer, you'll certainly find more than just a "Joe's Garage" clone. I think their modems are based on the Rockwell chipset, though. (As are just about every other clone modem. The Practical Peripherals modems, interestingly enough, use the Rockwell chipset [at least in the 2400bps and 9600bps modems], even though PPI is a wholly-owned subsidiary of Hayes. Hmm...) -- Marc Unangst | mju@mudos.ann-arbor.mi.us | "Bus error: passengers dumped" ...!hela!mudos!mju |
diamond@jit533.swstokyo.dec.com (Norman Diamond) (05/28/91)
In article <5002@orbit.cts.com> kurt@pnet51.orb.mn.org (Kurt Sletterdahl) writes: >IMHO, international competitiveness is dependant on invention and >innovation; and the ability to take these and develop marketable products. Of course. >(It seems all too often that the US makes the initial invention, and then >abandons it to be developed into a marketable product by Japan.) Of course, a few years ago, the same game was played by Canada instead of the U.S., and the U.S. instead of Japan. The more things change, the more they stay the same. (Follow-ups directed to /dev/null; feel free to change it if you have anything worth while to say.) -- Norman Diamond diamond@tkov50.enet.dec.com If this were the company's opinion, I wouldn't be allowed to post it. Permission is granted to feel this signature, but not to look at it.
kurt@pnet51.orb.mn.org (Kurt Sletterdahl) (05/29/91)
It has been said that what Hayes patented was not new or novel, so I
thought I would post how novelty is currently defined, from the
government booklet "General Information Concerning Patents":
In order for an invention to be patentable it must be new as
defined in the patent law, which provides that an invention cannot
be patented if--
"(a) The invention was known or used by others in this country, or
patented or described in a printed publication in this or a
foreign country, before the invention therof by the applicant for
patent or,"
"(b) The invention was patented or described in a printed
publication in this or a foreign country or in public use or on
sale in this country more than one year prior to the application
for patent in the United States....."
***
The subject matter sought to be patented must be sufficiently
different from what has been used or described before that it
may be said to be unobvious to a person having ordinary skill
in the area of technology related to the invention.
UUCP: {amdahl!bungia, uunet!rosevax, crash}!orbit!pnet51!kurt
ARPA: crash!orbit!pnet51!kurt@nosc.mil
INET: kurt@pnet51.orb.mn.orgdrw@paley.mit.edu (Dale R. Worley) (05/29/91)
In article <FPIBN-2@xds13.ferranti.com> peter@ficc.ferranti.com (Peter da Silva) writes:
Like I said, it's a kludge that covers for an inadequate programming
interface to the hardware.
True, it is a kludge. There is a correct and standardized way to
control and dial a modem. If all you need is to answer the phone, a
proper implementation of RS-232 will do the job. (The usual way to
describe it is "with full modem control".) If you need to dial the
phone, there is a standardized interface to control that, too. (Dec
sold a device for the PDP-11 that enabled the computer to control a
standard auto-dialer.)
The problem is that all of this requires hardware which was usually
not supplied (in order to save $$$), and operating system support,
which was also usually not supplied (in order to save $$$ in
development). In other words, it usually didn't work.
Hayes figured out a workable way to drive a modem and autodialer that
worked even if you had the most minimal hardware and operating system
support. And as a result, Hayes-compatible modems have taken over the
auto-dialing niche of computer hardware.
Dalepeter@ficc.ferranti.com (Peter da Silva) (05/30/91)
In article <DRW.91May29003457@paley.mit.edu> drw@paley.mit.edu (Dale R. Worley) writes: > Hayes figured out a workable way to drive a modem and autodialer that > worked even if you had the most minimal hardware and operating system > support. And as a result, Hayes-compatible modems have taken over the > auto-dialing niche of computer hardware. I don't think that "+++" was responsible for that. I think that it's because they were about the first hobbyist priced modem to provide dialling at all, other than things like Woz's Apple-II thingy. There were other modems that provided command interfaces through the serial port (Ventel, etc), but they were all commercially priced and out of reach of hobbyists. -- Peter da Silva; Ferranti International Controls Corporation; +1 713 274 5180; Sugar Land, TX 77487-5012; `-_-' "Have you hugged your wolf, today?"
wtm@uhura.neoucom.EDU (Bill Mayhew) (06/04/91)
I am not a patent attorney, thus I have a question. My admittedly slight understanding of patent law is that only things such as redily describable mechanical assemblies, manufacturing processes and computer algorithms may be patented under additional stipulations of uniqueness and originality. I do not understand exactly the way the (wait one second) +++ (wait one second) in band data link escape used by Hayes modems is patentable. I could understand a specific microprocessor algorithm or hardware timer chip to implement the escape could be patented, but not the escape sequence itself. There obviously nearly limitless numbers of ways the escape could be implemented with hardware and software. I can see why Hayes avoids challenging competitors on the AT command set becuase it has some semblance to language which is excluded from patentability. It would seem that the +++ sequence also might not stand a court challenge if both sides had equally deep pockets ant equally many lawyers. Of course, it is usually easier to switch than fight and just license the technology from Hayes. Bill -- Bill Mayhew NEOUCOM Computer Services Department Rootstown, OH 44272-9995 USA phone: 216-325-2511 wtm@uhura.neoucom.edu ....!uunet!aablue!neoucom!wtm via internet: (140.220.001.001)
shoe@multi.com (Mark Schuster) (06/04/91)
I am very interested in the discussions on the Hayes Lawsuit, but since I have started following them only recently, I need copies of the following articles posted previously. Anyone who has them, please mail me a message at 'shoe@multi.com'. I will reply back to you and get them from you. Thank you <1991May 20.023251.142@murdoch.acc.Virginia.edu> <TMB.91May19100536@volterra.ai.mit.edu> <14833@ulysses.att.com>smb@ulysses.att.com(Steven Bellovin) <Petrilli.91May24235803@geech.gnu.ai.mit.edu> <TMB.91May13041549@volterra.ai.mit.edu> <1991May17214226.10776@m.cs.uiuc.edu> <7e19222w164w@mantis.co.uk> <1991May20.03227.20127@midway.uchicago.edu>(Charles Geyer) <1991May20.172012.9445@alphalpha.com>nazgul@alphalpha.com(Kee Hinckley) <1991May19.123246.6857@unlinfo.unl.edu>
robin@lsl.co.uk (Robin Fairbairns) (06/06/91)
In article <1991May17.222410.26944@MDI.COM>, mitchell@MDI.COM (Bill Mitchell) writes: >>[...] > > Be fair now. > > The +++ mechanism allowed users and application writers to manipulate > the modem without having to worry about how to twiddle hardware control > lines. If you could talk _thru_ the modem, you could talk _to_ the > modem. > > That's a _big_ advantage over not being able to control the modem unless > you could find a way to twiddle the control lines in some strange way. > I remember a modem (I've forgotten who perpetrated it upon me) which > expected to be talked _thru_ with RTS asserted and talked _to_ with > RTS released. Drop RTS, give it commands to dial the phone, raise RTS > to talk to the other end of the link, drop RTS to give it more commands, > etc.; and I remember the hassle these things caused. Hayes "+++" was > like a breath of fresh air. I've come in late on this discussion (I'm going to hear RMS on his UK tour tomorrow). However, if the existence of +++ is the substance of the Hayes patent, then anyone with enough money and the will can certainly sue on the grounds that the patent is invalid on account of prior art. The operating system of the Titan computer here, completed in the mid 1960s, implemented just such a mechanism for switching the interpretation of Paper Tape Reader data from data back to control. The feature was widely copied, and certainly published over and over again in manuals by the University Mathematical Laboratory (as it then was). Unless the Hayes claim is minuscule in its extent (i.e., says nothing more expansive than `we claim the following thing for switching _modem_ data stream interpretation'), it's almost certainly invalid. -- Robin Fairbairns, Senior Consultant, postmaster and general dogsbody Laser-Scan Ltd., Science Park, Milton Rd., Cambridge CB4 4FY, UK Email: robin@lsl.co.uk --or-- rf@cl.cam.ac.uk
ts@cup.portal.com (Tim W Smith) (06/08/91)
Chris Petrilli (petrilli@gnu.ai.mit.edu) writes: ^^ > Polls have shown that roughly 90% of all programs do not belive ^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^ Wow! It sounds like you ai people have made quite a bit of progress since I last looked into your field! :-) Tim Smith
mcdougal@tegra.COM (Steve W McDougall) (06/14/91)
In article <676362343.49@egsgate.FidoNet.Org> Bill.Mayhew@f98.n250.z1.FidoNet.Org (Bill Mayhew) writes: >... only things such as >... mechanical assemblies, manufacturing processes >and computer algorithms may be patented under additional >stipulations of uniqueness and originality. > >I do not understand exactly the way the (wait one second) +++ (wait >one second) in band data link escape used by Hayes modems is >patentable. I could understand a specific microprocessor algorithm >or hardware timer chip to implement the escape could be patented, >but not the escape sequence itself. There obviously nearly >limitless numbers of ways the escape could be implemented with >hardware and software. Patent protection is a bit broader than that. You can patent an "invention" or a "process". It doesn't have to be a manufacturing process. In this case, it's a process for controlling a piece of communications equipment. I doubt that Hayes is claiming protection for this invention as a computer algorithm. In fact, there is a good case that this process does *not* constitute an algorithm, since it can be demonstrated to fail on certain (legitimate) data streams - i.e. any which happen to contain the wait+++wait sequence. Hayes' invention may seem obvious, but many inventions do - after someone else has invented them. That's part of what patent protection is all about. To see the non-obvious nature of this invention, think about what it is really based on. Hayes wanted a way to send out-of-band data on the in-band data stream. They looked at the serial communications protocol and noted that certian timing relationships - specifically, the intervals between bytes - were not specified. Then, they observed typical modem traffic, and noted that certain patterns of intervals - e.g. 1 sec delay, 3 bytes, 1 sec delay - rarely occurred. Based on this, they constructed their wait+++wait escape sequence. Looked at this way, perhaps it seems a bit less obvious. It is true that there are many other ways to control a modem. As has been noted in a previous posting to this group, RS-232 defines a set of modem control signals that suffice for most purposes. Anyone who wants to can build and program a complete RS-232 interface. Royalty-free. So why do so many people want to use Hayes invention? Its cheap. DB9 instead of DB25. Fewer ICs. Smaller cables. Easier to program. In short, a useful invention. Other software implementations? Well, it depends what you mean software. Hayes' patent may cover the entire concept of controlling a modem by sending out-of-band data on the in-band data stream. In that case, just using a different escape sequence, or finding a different way of encoding the out-of-band data wouldn't get around the patent. Is it novel? Probably. Hayes was one of the first mass-market modem manufacturers. I doubt that anyone else was using a system like this way back then. A previous posting noted that some (Sperry?) paper tape punch used a similar scheme. Fine. Hayes took that scheme and applied it to the control of modems. Patent law protects new applications of existing inventions. I'm generally opposed to software patents. But the Hayes patent isn't for software, or an algorithm. It's a legitimate process. Come on, lighten up. It probably expires in 10 years. If you're really unhappy, write your congressman. Better yet, write the Patent Office. They are soliciting public comments on current issues in patent law. The request for comments has been posted around the net the last few weeks. Check sci.crypt, misc.legal, comp.dcom.modems and maybe comp.gnu.* for a copy.