cec@public.BTR.COM (Cerafin E. Castillo cec@btr.com) (01/30/91)
I recently heard that Hayes Microcomputer was in the midst of a lawsuit
in regards to technology it (Hayes) develops, sells, or licenses. I did
not catch any specifics since it was mentioned on a stock market report
and technical or company comments were not made known.
Can anyone enlighten me on this issue? Toby, what is the company line?
Thanks in advance.
===============================================================================
Cerafin E. Castillo || //\\ ||\\ ||
Network Consultant || //__\\ || \\ || Los Altos
Los Altos Networks || // ---\\|| \\|| Networks
340 Second St. #6 ||___// \ | \ |
Los Altos, CA 94022
(415) 941-8031 UUCP: {apple,sun,uunet}!portal!cup.portal.com!cec
INTERNET: cec@cup.portal.com
"...No hay mal que por bien no venga..."
===============================================================================tnixon@hayes.uucp (01/30/91)
In article <1510@public.BTR.COM>, cec@public.BTR.COM (Cerafin E. Castillo cec@btr.com) writes: > I recently heard that Hayes Microcomputer was in the midst of a lawsuit > in regards to technology it (Hayes) develops, sells, or licenses. I did > not catch any specifics since it was mentioned on a stock market report > and technical or company comments were not made known. > > Can anyone enlighten me on this issue? Toby, what is the company line? Briefly, Hayes, like many modem companies (including Telebit), holds a number of patents related to modem technology we invented. Other companies who wish to incorporate this technology into their products must license the associated patent from Hayes. One such patent is the Heatherington '302 patent, "Modem with Improved Escape Sequence", which relates to the guard time associated with the "+++" escape sequence used to change the modem from online to command state. Many modem companies have licensed this patent from Hayes, since it is considered to be an essential feature of modems which can truthfully claim to be "Hayes compatible". The case you've heard about recently involves a patent infringement suit filed a number of years ago by Hayes against four companies which, despite being information by Hayes that their products infringed the patent, refused to obtain licenses and pay royalties. In fact, some of these companies sued Hayes FIRST, saying we were attempting to monopolize the modem market (a ridiculous contention, and their suit was thrown out by summary judgement a while back). This suit came to trial in early January. One of the four companies, Prometheus, settled and licensed the patent the day before the trail started. Last Friday, the jury returned their verdict, finding that the patent is valid, and that the remaining three companies (Everex, Omnitel, and Ventel) had willfully infringed it. The total damages awarded to Hayes by the jury was $3.5 million, to which will be added interest. Also, because of the finding of willful infringement, the judge may decide to treble the damages, and also award attorneys fees and other litigation costs. There is also the possibility that the infringers will be enjoined (prevented) from manufacturing any more products that infringe the patent, until they obtain licenses (which Hayes is under no legal obligation to grant). I really can't comment further than this, because there is still the potential that the defendants will appeal, so the matter is still technically in litigation. Hayes also has a suit pending against Multitech for infringing the same patent. -- Toby Nixon, Principal Engineer | Voice +1-404-449-8791 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
kurt@pnet51.orb.mn.org (Kurt Sletterdahl) (01/31/91)
You can download a detailed press release about the Hayes lawsuit by calling
their support BBS at 1-800-US-HAYES. The file to download is WEWON.TXT.
UUCP: {amdahl!bungia, uunet!rosevax, crash}!orbit!pnet51!kurt
ARPA: crash!orbit!pnet51!kurt@nosc.mil
INET: kurt@pnet51.orb.mn.orgvjs@rhyolite.wpd.sgi.com (Vernon Schryver) (02/02/91)
In article <3759.27a62207@hayes.uucp>, tnixon@hayes.uucp writes: > ... One such > patent is the Heatherington '302 patent, "Modem with Improved Escape > Sequence", which relates to the guard time associated with the "+++" > escape sequence used to change the modem from online to command > state. I seem to remember that the ARPANET TIP's in the late 1960's and early 1970's used a similar "guard time" around the "@" character used to signify that you wanted to stop talking accross the 56Kb links and fiddle with the local modem (well, packet switch, but same idea). If I remember correctly, would that ancient mechanism effect the validity of the Hayes patent? It is strange and unfortunate that such an obvious idea should have a defendable patent. Yes, the idea is obvious even before reading a Hayes (compatible) manual. Vernon Schryver, vjs@sgi.com
doug@letni.lonestar.org (Doug Davis) (02/02/91)
In article <3759.27a62207@hayes.uucp> tnixon@hayes.uucp writes: >One such patent is the Heatherington '302 patent, "Modem with Improved >Escape Sequence", which relates to the guard time associated with the >"+++" escape sequence used to change the modem from online to command >state. Ho boy, a "look and feel" lawsuit over a user interface, geez, and hayes won the first round too. What this shows is how desperate or silly we are getting. __ Doug Davis/4409 Sarazen/Mesquite Texas, 75150/214-270-9226 {texsun|lawnet|smu}!letni!doug doug@letni.lonestar.org "Be seeing you..."
lstowell@pyrnova.pyramid.com (Lon Stowell) (02/02/91)
In article <3759.27a62207@hayes.uucp> tnixon@hayes.uucp writes: >products must license the associated patent from Hayes. One such >patent is the Heatherington '302 patent, "Modem with Improved Escape >Sequence", which relates to the guard time associated with the "+++" >escape sequence used to change the modem from online to command Toby, is the actual "AT" command set itself considered licensed technology, or has Hayes made a gift of it to the hackers of the world?
tnixon@hayes.uucp (02/03/91)
In article <143271@pyramid.pyramid.com>, lstowell@pyrnova.pyramid.com (Lon Stowell) writes: > Toby, is the actual "AT" command set itself considered licensed > technology, or has Hayes made a gift of it to the hackers of the > world? There was nothing considered to be patentable with regard to the AT command set itself -- I mean, the concept of giving a device commands is pretty general. But even the specifics related to detecting the speed and format from the "AT" predated Hayes' first Smartmodem. So, really, it never was Hayes' to make a "gift" of. -- Toby Nixon, Principal Engineer | Voice +1-404-449-8791 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
karl@ddsw1.MCS.COM (Karl Denninger) (02/04/91)
In article <83693@sgi.sgi.com> vjs@rhyolite.wpd.sgi.com (Vernon Schryver) writes: >In article <3759.27a62207@hayes.uucp>, tnixon@hayes.uucp writes: >> ... One such >> patent is the Heatherington '302 patent, "Modem with Improved Escape >> Sequence", which relates to the guard time associated with the "+++" >> escape sequence used to change the modem from online to command >> state. > >I seem to remember that the ARPANET TIP's in the late 1960's and early >1970's used a similar "guard time" around the "@" character used to signify >that you wanted to stop talking accross the 56Kb links and fiddle with the >local modem (well, packet switch, but same idea). If I remember correctly, >would that ancient mechanism effect the validity of the Hayes patent? You bet. It would likely invalidate it. Someone should make sure the defendants in the Hayes suit are aware of this! >It is strange and unfortunate that such an obvious idea should have a >defendable patent. Yes, the idea is obvious even before reading a Hayes >(compatible) manual. Yes, it is. My response to "patents" of this type is to boycott products from that company. Towards that end, I simply won't buy any more Hayes products (not that they've had one worth purchasing in the last 5 years!) -- Karl Denninger (karl@ddsw1.MCS.COM, <well-connected>!ddsw1!karl) Public Access Data Line: [+1 708 808-7300], Voice: [+1 708 808-7200] Macro Computer Solutions, Inc. "Quality Solutions at a Fair Price"
sichermn@beach.csulb.edu (Jeff Sicherman) (02/04/91)
Wonder if there's any connection here to some layoff's at Everex recently. Or just another nail-in-the-coffin
tnixon@hayes.uucp (02/05/91)
In article <1991Feb3.205059.14304@bilver.uucp>, bill@bilver.uucp (Bill Vermillion) writes: > Wasn't the "AT Command" set originally brought out by Concord (?). > (I think that's who it was. Correct me if I'm wrong. The one place > I thought I had it, 1984 Fall Comdex book disappeared. I have a > mark against a company called Bytecom, that it?). > > I seem to remember that Concord (or whoever it was) was going to sue > anyone, including Hayes, who didn't negotiate a license for that. No, the first modem with an AT command set was the Hayes Smartmodem (300bps). However, what you might be thinking of is the patent on the "+++" escape sequence itself (WITHOUT guard times) which had been granted to Bizcomp. This patent was eventually declared invalid in a trial, but the Hayes patent (which "built on" the Bizcomp patent with the guard time) was upheld. Hayes did license the Bizcomp patent when it was first granted, but (of course) we don't pay royalties on it now. -- Toby Nixon, Principal Engineer | Voice +1-404-449-8791 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
lstowell@pyrnova.pyramid.com (Lon Stowell) (02/05/91)
In article <1933@blackbird.afit.af.mil> lriggins@blackbird.afit.af.mil (L. Maurice Riggins) writes: (Justified cheapshot at Apple deleted) >Look who's talking about ridiculous patents! > It IS too bad that certain companies (Apple Lotus) have turned the personal recreational term "look and feel" into a legal term...with no relationship to it's prior fun useage. Hmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmm, I wonder if you can sue a lawyer for using the term "look and feel" which CERTAINLY predates its useage in courts of law...except for divorce, paternity cases, etc. >:-)
laird@chinet.chi.il.us (Laird J. Heal) (02/05/91)
In article <1991Feb03.184636.16688@ddsw1.MCS.COM> karl@ddsw1.MCS.COM (Karl Denninger) writes: >In article <83693@sgi.sgi.com> vjs@rhyolite.wpd.sgi.com (Vernon Schryver) writes: >>In article <3759.27a62207@hayes.uucp>, tnixon@hayes.uucp writes: >>> ... One such >>> patent [...]relates to the guard time associated with the "+++" >>> escape sequence used to change the modem from online to command >>> state. >> >>>... >>It is strange and unfortunate that such an obvious idea should have a >>defendable patent. Yes, the idea is obvious even before reading a Hayes >>(compatible) manual. >Yes, it is. While the concept of claiming intellectual property rights in the escape sequence seems trivial to me too, I have to say that 'obvious' ideas are often so simple only after they have been (1) reduced to practice and (2) explained to the masses. I have not seen the patent or an abstract, but if the subject matter were, for instance, storing a user-selectable value for the guard time in an internal register, then that might cross the very fine line between "methods" which are not patentable and "processes" which are. There is nothing more abhorrent than a patent suit, but it serves to reward the truly inventive among us (that is, if they teamed up with the truly litigious). On the whole, society benefits from such an action, but I cannot help but hope that the defendants win reversal on appeal in this case. -- Laird J. Heal The Usenet is dead! Here: laird@chinet.chi.il.us Long Live the Usenet!
ebh@argon.UUCP (Ed Horch) (02/05/91)
In article <1933@blackbird.afit.af.mil> lriggins@blackbird.afit.af.mil (L. Maurice Riggins) writes: >In article <1991Feb03.221512.8352@sat.uucp> lmb@sat.uucp (Larry Blair) writes: >>Larry Blair apple!sat!lmb lmb%sat.uucp@apple.com > ^^^^^ >Look who's talking about ridiculous patents! (Look who doesn't know how to read email addresses!) But I agree with those who say that patenting +++ is like patenting eight-bit bytes. If I were challenging the pat- ent in court, I'd bring in a bunch of CS students unfamiliar with +++, describe the problem, and ask them to solve it in front of the judge. When they all come up with one variation or another on that technique, it would point out that we're not talkng intellectual property on the level of DSP programming or ASIC design... BTW, do the Japanese companies spend as much time and money suing each other as ours in the U.S. do? -Ed
jeff@onion.rain.com (Jeff Beadles) (02/06/91)
In <1933@blackbird.afit.af.mil> lriggins@blackbird.afit.af.mil (L. Maurice Riggins) writes: ... >>Larry Blair apple!sat!lmb lmb%sat.uucp@apple.com >Look who's talking about ridiculous patents! Look who can't read email addresses. So what, he gets his email *THRU* Apple.com. Big deal. He's on site "sat.uucp" though. Please people, at least have a CLUE before you post a flame, ok? Please? Pretty please? If you want to know the rules of email address routing, there's groups for it. (Try comp.mail.headers, or comp.mail.uucp for starters) Now, it's time to repeat 10 times after me... "I will not flame someone when I don't know what I'm talking about." Don't you feel better now? Good. -Jeff P.S. 1/2 :-) is intended for this entire article. I'm just tired of seeing people fire up the flamethrowers before they take the brain out of neutral. -- Jeff Beadles jeff@onion.rain.com
drmath@moocow.uucp (Doctor Math) (02/07/91)
lstowell@pyrnova.pyramid.com (Lon Stowell) writes: > In article <1933@blackbird.afit.af.mil> lriggins@blackbird.afit.af.mil (L. Ma > (Justified cheapshot at Apple deleted) > >Look who's talking about ridiculous patents! > > > It IS too bad that certain companies (Apple Lotus) have > turned the personal recreational term "look and feel" into a > legal term...with no relationship to it's prior fun useage. As far as I'm concerned, the whole "look and feel" business has gotten way out of hand. What if auto manufacturers were allowed to do the same? Say, Ford has a patent covering placement of the gas pedal, and GM has another patent covering placement, size, and functionality of the steering wheel, while Dodge gets a patent for location of the brake pedal. What happens? (a) the price of cars skyrockets, (b) each manufacturer develops a different "look and feel" for their user interface. Either way, the consumer loses. Comparison: How wide a selection of terminal programs would be available if each manufacturer's modems had different interface and command specifications? You'd be stuck with whatever terminal program you got with your modem, and if you didn't like the features, too bad. When does this become "unfair restraint of trade"? *** Doctor Math Disclaimer: I don't have a job, therefore my opinions are worthless.
bob@MorningStar.Com (Bob Sutterfield) (02/07/91)
In article <842@argon.UUCP> ebh@argon.UUCP (Ed Horch) writes:
BTW, do the Japanese companies spend as much time and money suing
each other as ours in the U.S. do?
No, we're still in the lead in that niche of the marketplace.barmar@think.com (Barry Margolin) (02/08/91)
In article <Jokyw1@moocow.uucp> drmath@moocow.uucp (Doctor Math) writes: >Say, Ford has a patent covering placement of the gas pedal, and GM has >another patent covering placement, size, and functionality of the >steering wheel, while Dodge gets a patent for location of the brake >pedal. What happens? (a) the price of cars skyrockets, (b) each manufacturer >develops a different "look and feel" for their user interface. Either >way, the consumer loses. Actually, when the competitors each have their own patents, there's a third result: (c) they make cross-licensing deals, and everyone wins. Ford says to GM: I'll let you use my gas pedal patent if you let me use your steering wheel patent; GM says to Dodge: I'll let you use my steering wheel patent if you let me use your brake patent; and Dodge says to Ford: I'll let you use my brake patent if you let me use your gas pedal patent. Voila! The prices are unchanged, and cars are all compatible. Now, if Chrysler comes along and doesn't have anything of value to trade, it can't get in on the deal. The patent system encourages Chysler to invent something that the other manufacturers will need. -- Barry Margolin, Thinking Machines Corp. barmar@think.com {uunet,harvard}!think!barmar
tmb@ai.mit.edu (Thomas M. Breuel) (02/08/91)
In article <1991Feb8.043622.13204@Think.COM>, barmar@think.com (Barry Margolin) writes: |> Actually, when the competitors each have their own patents, there's a third |> result: (c) they make cross-licensing deals, and everyone wins. Ford says |> to GM: I'll let you use my gas pedal patent if you let me use your steering |> wheel patent; GM says to Dodge: I'll let you use my steering wheel patent |> if you let me use your brake patent; and Dodge says to Ford: I'll let you |> use my brake patent if you let me use your gas pedal patent. Voila! The |> prices are unchanged, and cars are all compatible. |> |> Now, if Chrysler comes along and doesn't have anything of value to trade, |> it can't get in on the deal. The patent system encourages Chysler to |> invent something that the other manufacturers will need. False, not everybody wins. Big companies win. Small companies and individual inventors generally don't have a large store of patents that are of interest to large companies. So, a large company is usually in a position of keeping a small company from entering the market by refusing to licence some technology to the small company, but the reverse is not true. Increasing the cost of entry is hardly the purpose or intention of the patent system.
swansonc@acc.stolaf.edu (Chris Swanson, St. Olaf College) (02/09/91)
Here's one more "aye" for boycotting Hayes products, besides the unreasonably high cost :( although with Hayes throwing lawyers around, maybe other modem manufacturers will have to raise prices to pay licensing, penalties, etc. - Ouch ): -Chris -- Chris Swanson, Chem/CS/Pre-med Undergrad, St. Olaf College, Northfield,MN 55057 DDN: CDS6 INTERNET: swansonc@acc.stolaf.edu UUCP: swansonc@stolaf AT&T: Work: (507)-645-6845 Home: (507)-663-6424 I would deny this reality, but that wouldn't pay the bills...
john@newave.UUCP (John A. Weeks III) (02/09/91)
In article <1991Feb6.002216.15023@onion.rain.com> jeff@onion.rain.com writes: > In <1933@blackbird.afit.af.mil> lriggins@blackbird.afit.af.mil > > > Larry Blair apple!sat!lmb lmb%sat.uucp@apple.com > > Look who's talking about ridiculous patents! > Look who can't read email addresses. This is what I like so much about USENET. Nice come-back Jeff...rates a 9.86. -john- -- =============================================================================== John A. Weeks III (612) 942-6969 john@newave.mn.org NeWave Communications ...uunet!rosevax!tcnet!wd0gol!newave!john ===============================================================================
Erik@tdkt.FIDONET.ORG (Erik Jacobson) (02/15/91)
CS>Here's one more "aye" for boycotting Hayes products, besides the CS>unreasonably high cost :( although with Hayes throwing lawyers around, CS>maybe other modem manufacturers will have to raise prices to pay CS>licensing, penalties, etc. - Ouch ): (Of course, this is a delayed reply). I am a little broken between here. Where would we be today if it weren't for Hayes? A person must ask him or herself this question... I have this response from Ventel regarding that lawsuit. I do NOT know what the "rank" of this guy is, but it is a little bit of information. This is in response to that first release of information. It was posted in the QuickLink network area called "Ventel". It is for general communications along with information releases. Board #180 * Message #33: (Kill)(Recd)(Read 1 times) ;To: ERIK JACOBSON ;From: WM DUEMLER On: 13 Feb 91 08:47:00 ;Subj: HAYES LAWSUIT AREA:VENTEL Here's the official Ven-Tel response: On Friday, January 25, 1991, a Federal District Court jury in San Francisco rendered a verdict that the Hayes escape sequence patent was valid. Ven-Tel adamantly disagrees with this verdict and will appeal it to the Federal Circuit Court of Appeals. This is a specialty appeal court for patent matters. This court will be able to address certain legal matters which the jury could not comprehend. Ven-Tel is highly confident that this court will reverse the verdict. The verdict does not have any impact on Ven-Tel's product shipments. --- ; 0 QNet 2.04: QuickLink:TIPS BBS <> San Jose Ca. 408-922-0988 ; * Origin: QuickLink HeadQuarters: Exeter, New Hampshire 603-772-4239 (65/65) -- | Erik Jacobson, SysOp of The Dark Knight's Table BBS | | (612) 938-8924 (HST V32) Minnetonka, Minnesota | | Domain: Erik@tdkt.fidonet.org -or- Erik@tdkt.kksys.mn.org | | "Dust is a protective coating for fine furniture" - Mario Buatta |
tnixon@hayes.uucp (03/04/91)
In article <1510@public.BTR.COM>, cec@public.BTR.COM (Cerafin E. Castillo cec@btr.com) writes: > I recently heard that Hayes Microcomputer was in the midst of a lawsuit > in regards to technology it (Hayes) develops, sells, or licenses. I did > not catch any specifics since it was mentioned on a stock market report > and technical or company comments were not made known. > > Can anyone enlighten me on this issue? Toby, what is the company line? Of course, I have much more detail available here than you could possibly be interested in, but in a nutshell: In 1985, Hayes was granted U.S. Patent 4,549,302 entitled "Modem with Improved Escape Sequence", which covers modems which use a guard time in conjunction with a character sequence to move from online data state to command state. Most modems that claim Hayes compatibility perform such a function and make use of the patented technology. In 1986, Hayes began efforts to enforce the patent, establishing a licensing program and contacting over 170 modem manufacturers offering to license the patent. Many companies subsequently licensed the patent, and continue to do so today. Back in 1987, however, several companies brought suit against Hayes, charging an attempt to monopolize the modem industry. Hayes sued these companies for willful patent infringement. The monopolization claim was subsequently thrown out in summary judgement (it's inconceivable to me how anybody could look at the modem market and even begin to think that Hayes has a monopoly!), and the patent infringement case continued. In January of 1991, a jury trial was held in US District Court in San Francisco. The Heatherington '302 patent was found to be valid, and Everex, Omnitel, and Ven-Tel were found to have willfully infringed the patent. The total amount of damages awarded by the jury was approximately $3.5 million. Because of the willful infringement, the judge may treble these damages and also require the defendants to pay Hayes' litigation costs and interest back to when the companies were notified of the patent; a hearing on this is scheduled for April 5th. Prometheus was also a defendant, but they settled on the eve of the trial and are now a licensee. USRobotics was also a defendant at one point, but they settled some time ago and entered into a broad cross-license with Hayes at that time. A similar patent infringement trial is currently pending against Multi-Tech, and Hayes intends to actively work to enforce its intellectual property rights against other infringers. I'll try to answer any other questions you might have, but am constrained to what has been mentioned in official company press releases since the matter is still before the courts. -- 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