cyusta@tasu81.UUCP ( Yuval Shahar ) (05/22/91)
I believe this issue has been discussed here before so apologies are due.
I need the current status on source licensing issues, in particular with
regard to MNP5 and V42.bis. The last I heard was that MNP5 costs 5K-20K$
payed to Microcom, and that V42.bis costs a total of about 50K$ payed to IBM,
British-Telecom and Unisys. I also know that CCITT threatened to take some
kind of action if this license fee was not drastically reduced. Also I heard
something about the AT commands having some kind of a patent. Any info would
be greatly appreciated. Also, any other legal pitfalls and caveats related to
writing a v42/v42-bis, MNP1-5 modem are of interest.
Thanks,
Yuval
Yuval Shachar cyusta@taux01.nsc.com cyusta@nsc.nsc.com
shachar@taurus.bitnet shachar@math.tau.ac.il
National Semiconductor (Israel) P.O.B. 3007, Herzlia 46104, Israel
Tel. +972 52 522310 TWX: 33691, fax: +972-52-558322tnixon@hayes.uucp (05/23/91)
In article <5882@taux01.nsc.com>, cyusta@tasu81.UUCP ( Yuval Shahar ) writes: > I believe this issue has been discussed here before so apologies are due. > I need the current status on source licensing issues, in particular with > regard to MNP5 and V42.bis. The last I heard was that MNP5 costs 5K-20K$ > payed to Microcom, and that V42.bis costs a total of about 50K$ payed to IBM, > British-Telecom and Unisys. I also know that CCITT threatened to take some > kind of action if this license fee was not drastically reduced. Also I heard > something about the AT commands having some kind of a patent. Any info would > be greatly appreciated. Also, any other legal pitfalls and caveats related to > writing a v42/v42-bis, MNP1-5 modem are of interest. I think you've got the licensing issues right, including the payees. My understanding is that the total for V.42bis is now $60K, since British Telecom raised their fee when the patents which were previously "pending" are now "issued". As far as the CCITT "threaten[ing] to take some kind of action", I know nothing of the kind, and I've been an active participant in CCITT Study Group XVII throughout the development of V.42bis and since then. If there was going to be any "action" taken, it would have been for the CCITT member countries to vote down V.42bis. But V.42bis was, in fact, unanimously accepted -- so much for taking action. The fact is that the CCITT strictly avoids becoming involved in discussions as to whether or not a particular patent is valid or invalid, and as to whether or not a particular licensing arrangement is "reasonable". All the CCITT requires is for those claiming a patent interest in technology that must be implemented to comply with a Recommendation to issue a written statement agreeing to license the related patents on a non-discriminatory basis to anyone in conjunction with implementation of the subject standard. The Hayes AT command set itself is not patented, but Hayes holds a patent on the escape sequence with guard time that is used to return from data state to command state. There are several other patents related to error control, modulation (such as scramblers and trellis coding), and other features and functions of modems. It would be inappropriate for me (as a potential competitor) to advise you on this, except to tell you who to contact at Hayes for information on licensing our patents: Janet Gronholm, at the voice number noted below. -- Toby -- Toby Nixon, Principal Engineer | Voice +1-404-840-9200 Telex 151243420 Hayes Microcomputer Products Inc. | Fax +1-404-447-0178 CIS 70271,404 P.O. Box 105203 | UUCP uunet!hayes!tnixon AT&T !tnixon Atlanta, Georgia 30348 USA | Internet hayes!tnixon@uunet.uu.net