rdippold@cancun.qualcomm.com (Ron Dippold) (05/16/91)
For those looking for prior work in the Hayes case, this comes from comp.dcom.telecom: Article 6056 of comp.dcom.telecom: Path: qualcom.qualcomm.com!ucsd!swrinde!zaphod.mps.ohio-state.edu!sol.ctr.columbia.edu!lll-winken!telecom-request From: news@psg.com (Randy Bush) Newsgroups: comp.dcom.telecom Subject: Re: Hayes Wins Damages on its Command Set Patent Message-ID: <telecom11.360.5@eecs.nwu.edu> Date: 14 May 91 15:01:00 GMT Sender: Telecom@eecs.nwu.edu Organization: TELECOM Digest Lines: 16 Approved: Telecom@eecs.nwu.edu X-Submissions-To: telecom@eecs.nwu.edu X-Administrivia-To: telecom-request@eecs.nwu.edu X-Telecom-Digest: Volume 11, Issue 360, Message 5 of 11 > The patent upheld is on the method of notifying the DCE equipment that > the next data arriving should be treated as a command to the DCE, as > opposed to data to be transmitted to the far end; that is, switching > to command mode. You mean kinda like one tells an X.25 PAD (i.e. Telenet et al.) to drop to command mode from data mode, <pause> "@" <cr> <pause> Seeing as the above and similar uses have been in use since the '70s, how did our friends from Norcross manage to patent it? Randy Bush / news@psg.com / ..!uunet!m2xenix!news -- Standard disclaimer applies, you legalistic hacks. | Ron Dippold
grr@cbmvax.commodore.com (George Robbins) (05/16/91)
In article <1991May15.194658.17376@qualcomm.com> rdippold@cancun.qualcomm.com (Ron Dippold) writes: > For those looking for prior work in the Hayes case, this comes from > comp.dcom.telecom: > > > The patent upheld is on the method of notifying the DCE equipment that > > the next data arriving should be treated as a command to the DCE, as > > opposed to data to be transmitted to the far end; that is, switching > > to command mode. > > You mean kinda like one tells an X.25 PAD (i.e. Telenet et al.) to drop to > command mode from data mode, > > <pause> "@" <cr> <pause> > > Seeing as the above and similar uses have been in use since the '70s, > how did our friends from Norcross manage to patent it? Well, if can be documented that it works exactly that way and predates the Hayes implementation, it sure sounds like a good case for prior art in using timing guardbands to enable/disable sensing of command mode escapes. It should blow Hayes out of the water, but who knows these days... -- 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)
lstowell@pyrnova.pyramid.com (Lon Stowell) (05/17/91)
>In article <1991May15.194658.17376@qualcomm.com> rdippold@cancun.qualcomm.com (Ron Dippold) writes: <hopefully I haven't mis-attributed this....> >> For those looking for prior work in the Hayes case, this comes from >> comp.dcom.telecom: >> >> > The patent upheld is on the method of notifying the DCE equipment that >> > the next data arriving should be treated as a command to the DCE, as >> > opposed to data to be transmitted to the far end; that is, switching >> > to command mode. >> >> You mean kinda like one tells an X.25 PAD (i.e. Telenet et al.) to drop to >> command mode from data mode, >> >> <pause> "@" <cr> <pause> >> >> Seeing as the above and similar uses have been in use since the '70s, >> how did our friends from Norcross manage to patent it? The use of a character to do a "PAD recall using a character" does NOT define a requirement for a guard timer around the selected character...and quite a few PAD's will enter command mode upon detecting ^P (mandatory value) or another defined "optional" value in a continuous datastream. They might LEAVE command mode immediately if configured to do so....