martillo@cpoint.UUCP (Joachim Carlo Santos Martillo) (07/04/89)
In article <2377@cpoint.UUCP> martillo@cpoint.UUCP (Joachim Carlo Santos Martillo) writes: I saw the following article a few weeks ago in comp.protocols.tcp-ip. > Unfortunately, I know quite a bit about the Soderblom > patent. It was first issued in the fall of 1981 after much > consideration at the Patent Office. The senior patent in > this area is Farmer and Newhall (AT&T). During the '70's, > there were several interferences between the claims of > Soderblom and those of Farmer and Newhall. The Farmer and > Newhall design, patented in 1971, was used by Dave Farber to > help in the creation of the UC Irvine Ring (If I'm wrong, > Dave, Please correct me). Then, Jerry Saltzer, Dave Clark, > Ken Pogren and a bunch of people here at Proteon used the UC > Irvine Ring to help in the creation of ProNET-10. > Proteon never expected patent problems. In fact, in 1982, I > presented details of our design at IEEE Headquarters in NYC > to many AT&T employees including Bob Lucky. We joked about > the fact that I was using BSTJ figures for my presentation, > thus bringing new meaning to the phrase "not invented here". > The Soderblom patent applied to systems which consisted of a > master and a plurality of terminals. Farmer and Newhall was > the senior patent when it came to closed loop operations. > In 1983 or maybe 84, Soderblom presented at IEEE802.5. We > were well aware of the Soderblom position. IEEE staff were > also involved. We went ahead on the basis that Soderblom > would provide licenses in a nondiscriminatory way. We also > had a good idea of the probable terms for such a license. > Since that time, the Patent Office has allowed a reissue of > the Soderblom patent. The reissue has much more general > claims. Many organizations filed objections which were > brushed aside by the patent Office. That's why he has > general coverage of a 1967 idea until 1998. His patents have > run out elsewhere in the world. Don't blame Olaf. > Many of us object to the whole procedure. That is, Was the > token ring a new concept or an" old combination" in 1967? > Many of us object to the details of the legal rangling. > Nonetheless many of us have signed up simply because the > patent office has spoken. In all cases, the exact terms of > the license are covered by a non disclosure clause. > It is also clear that some have chosen not to sign a > license with Soberblom. It is expected that someone will > take this to court for resolution. Time will tell. > Howard Salwen, Chairman-Founder > Proteon, Inc. > hs@relay.proteon.com I looked up the patent abstract in the Patent Office Official Gazette of October 6, 1981. The engineering library at MIT has a subscription. On page 420 is found patent number 4,293,948, Data Transmission System, whose abstract follows. 1. Apparatus for the transmission of data characters in pulse form from a plurality of terminal units to a master unit comprising in combination: pulse input and pulse output means for each said terminal unit and for said master unit, a single series loop connecting said terminal units in series along said loop between the pulse output means and pulse input means of said master unit and over which pulses originating either with said master unit or any terminal unit are transmitted always in the same predetermined direction, each said terminal unit including: (a) pulse responsive means connected to said pulse input means for receiving pulses appearing at said pulse input means, (b) decoding means distinctively responsive to pulses received by said pulse responsive means, (c) and logic means responsive to said decoding means for normally interconnecting said pulse input and pulse output means to thereby complete the loop at said terminal, unit, (d) said logic means in response to a distinctive pattern of said pulses appearing at the associated pulse input means interrupting the loop between said pulse input and pulse output means of stored data of arbitrary variable length as required by said terminal unit for transmission over the loop to said master unit, (e) said logic means being effective upon the opening of said at the first upstream terminal unit having data to send for inhibiting the receipt at any downstream terminal unit of pulses otherwise effective to control said downstream terminal unit to transmit data. --------------------------------------------------------------------- As usual, the language is totally obscure, and if the actual patent is similarly written, I would feel that the patent officer would have been negligent not to have rejected the application on those grounds alone. I wrote away for the complete patent (it only costs a $1.50) but if this abstract contains the key elements of the patent, the issue of whether the token ring was a new concept or an old combination in 1967 seems totally irrelevant. From the abstract, Soderblum seems to have patented a circuit which is an intelligent unidirectional digital repeater/transceiver. The intelligence involves the ability to become a transmitter of queued data upon reception of signals (a packet) on the receive input. Clearly, the 802.5 MAU is such an intelligent unidirectional digital repeater/transceiver. Likewise, the FDDI MAU contains two intelligent unidirectional digital repeater/transceivers. However, I doubt either MAU has any circuits borrowed from the Soderblom circuit. Now, I would consider the following scenario analogous to what Soderblom has achieved at the patent office. It is 1890 and I build the first electric stove which I patent. After I start selling my electric stove, other people begin selling electric stoves. However, their heating elements, control elements and insulation are completely different. In fact, other manufacturers begin manufacturing toasters and perculators and other devices which cook or prepare food using heat generated by electricity. I then go off and accuse all of these other manufacturers of patent infringement. I would hope that the court would find my claims gratuitous except in the case of a stove manufacturer who had copied my original electric stove down to the nuts and bolts. In other words, I would have rights to my own design and that's all. Purporting to owning the concept of cooking with electrically-generated heat would seem a bit presumptuous. The Soderblum patent is equally presumptuous. Unidirectional digital repeaters have been around since the 50s. Adding a circuit so that a digital repeater receiving a signal from the receive input could become a transmitter is a nice little modification, and it might even have been slightly difficult using 1967 hardware logic and it may even be reasonable to give Soderblum a patent for that specific 1967 circuit which no one in their right mind would ever use today. However, the trend to make relative dumb repeating, amplifying and filtering devices ever more intelligent through the addition of interpretive or program-type logic has existed in electronics since the first electronics engineers began working at the job and certainly has increased with the availability of microcontroller chips, PLAs and PLDs. There is no obvious justification in granting patent rights over all circuits which constitute a class distinguished from a pre-existing class of circuits simply through minor extensions to enable some interpretation of incoming data with the result that the behavior of the circuits might be altered on the basis of interpretation. Joachim Martillo
martillo@cpoint.UUCP (Joachim Carlo Santos Martillo) (07/04/89)
In article <2413@cpoint.UUCP> martillo@cpoint.UUCP (Joachim Carlo Santos Martillo) writes: >In article <2377@cpoint.UUCP> martillo@cpoint.UUCP (Joachim Carlo Santos Martillo) writes: > >I saw the following article a few weeks ago in comp.protocols.tcp-ip. > >> Unfortunately, I know quite a bit about the Soderblom >> patent. It was first issued in the fall of 1981 after much >> consideration at the Patent Office. The senior patent in >> this area is Farmer and Newhall (AT&T). During the '70's, >> there were several interferences between the claims of >> Soderblom and those of Farmer and Newhall. The Farmer and >> Newhall design, patented in 1971, was used by Dave Farber to >> help in the creation of the UC Irvine Ring (If I'm wrong, >> Dave, Please correct me). Then, Jerry Saltzer, Dave Clark, >> Ken Pogren and a bunch of people here at Proteon used the UC >> Irvine Ring to help in the creation of ProNET-10. > >> Proteon never expected patent problems. In fact, in 1982, I >> presented details of our design at IEEE Headquarters in NYC >> to many AT&T employees including Bob Lucky. We joked about >> the fact that I was using BSTJ figures for my presentation, >> thus bringing new meaning to the phrase "not invented here". >> The Soderblom patent applied to systems which consisted of a >> master and a plurality of terminals. Farmer and Newhall was >> the senior patent when it came to closed loop operations. > >> In 1983 or maybe 84, Soderblom presented at IEEE802.5. We >> were well aware of the Soderblom position. IEEE staff were >> also involved. We went ahead on the basis that Soderblom >> would provide licenses in a nondiscriminatory way. We also >> had a good idea of the probable terms for such a license. > >> Since that time, the Patent Office has allowed a reissue of >> the Soderblom patent. The reissue has much more general >> claims. Many organizations filed objections which were >> brushed aside by the patent Office. That's why he has >> general coverage of a 1967 idea until 1998. His patents have >> run out elsewhere in the world. Don't blame Olaf. > >> Many of us object to the whole procedure. That is, Was the >> token ring a new concept or an" old combination" in 1967? >> Many of us object to the details of the legal rangling. >> Nonetheless many of us have signed up simply because the >> patent office has spoken. In all cases, the exact terms of >> the license are covered by a non disclosure clause. > >> It is also clear that some have chosen not to sign a >> license with Soberblom. It is expected that someone will >> take this to court for resolution. Time will tell. > >> Howard Salwen, Chairman-Founder >> Proteon, Inc. >> hs@relay.proteon.com > > >I looked up the patent abstract in the Patent Office Official Gazette >of October 6, 1981. The engineering library at MIT has a >subscription. On page 420 is found patent number 4,293,948, Data >Transmission System, whose abstract follows. > >1. Apparatus for the transmission of data characters in pulse form >from a plurality of terminal units to a master unit comprising in >combination: > > pulse input and pulse output means for each said terminal > unit and for said master unit, > > a single series loop connecting said terminal units in > series along said loop between the pulse output means > and pulse input means of said master unit and over which > pulses originating either with said master unit or any > terminal unit are transmitted always in the same > predetermined direction, > > each said terminal unit including: > > (a) pulse responsive means connected to said pulse input means > for receiving pulses appearing at said pulse input means, > > (b) decoding means distinctively responsive to pulses > received by said pulse responsive means, > > (c) and logic means responsive to said decoding means for > normally interconnecting said pulse input and pulse output > means to thereby complete the loop at said terminal, unit, > > (d) said logic means in response to a distinctive pattern > of said pulses appearing at the associated pulse input > means interrupting the loop between said pulse input and > pulse output means of stored data of arbitrary variable > length as required by said terminal unit for transmission > over the loop to said master unit, > > (e) said logic means being effective upon the opening of > said at the first upstream terminal unit having data to > send for inhibiting the receipt at any downstream terminal > unit of pulses otherwise effective to control said downstream > terminal unit to transmit data. > >--------------------------------------------------------------------- > >As usual, the language is totally obscure, and if the actual patent >is similarly written, I would feel that the patent officer would have >been negligent not to have rejected the application on those grounds >alone. I wrote away for the complete patent (it only costs a $1.50) >but if this abstract contains the key elements of the patent, the >issue of whether the token ring was a new concept or an old >combination in 1967 seems totally irrelevant. > >From the abstract, Soderblum seems to have patented a circuit which >is an intelligent unidirectional digital repeater/transceiver. The >intelligence involves the ability to become a transmitter of queued >data upon reception of signals (a packet) on the receive input. >Clearly, the 802.5 MAU is such an intelligent unidirectional digital >repeater/transceiver. Likewise, the FDDI MAU contains two >intelligent unidirectional digital repeater/transceivers. However, I >doubt either MAU has any circuits borrowed from the Soderblom >circuit. > >Now, I would consider the following scenario analogous to what >Soderblom has achieved at the patent office. > >It is 1890 and I build the first electric stove which I patent. >After I start selling my electric stove, other people begin selling >electric stoves. However, their heating elements, control elements >and insulation are completely different. In fact, other >manufacturers begin manufacturing toasters and perculators and other >devices which cook or prepare food using heat generated by >electricity. > >I then go off and accuse all of these other manufacturers of patent >infringement. I would hope that the court would find my claims >gratuitous except in the case of a stove manufacturer who had copied >my original electric stove down to the nuts and bolts. > >In other words, I would have rights to my own design and that's all. >Purporting to owning the concept of cooking with >electrically-generated heat would seem a bit presumptuous. > >The Soderblum patent is equally presumptuous. Unidirectional digital >repeaters have been around since the 50s. Adding a circuit so that a >digital repeater receiving a signal from the receive input could >become a transmitter is a nice little modification, and it might even >have been slightly difficult using 1967 hardware logic and it may >even be reasonable to give Soderblum a patent for that specific 1967 >circuit which no one in their right mind would ever use today. >However, the trend to make relative dumb repeating, amplifying and >filtering devices ever more intelligent through the addition of >interpretive or program-type logic has existed in electronics since >the first electronics engineers began working at the job and >certainly has increased with the availability of microcontroller >chips, PLAs and PLDs. > >There is no obvious justification in granting patent rights over all >circuits which constitute a class distinguished from a pre-existing >class of circuits simply through minor extensions to enable some >interpretation of incoming data with the result that the behavior of >the circuits might be altered on the basis of interpretation. > >Joachim Martillo > > > > > >
lars@salt.acc.com (Lars J Poulsen) (07/04/89)
In article <2414@cpoint.UUCP> and <2413@cpoint.UUCP> and <2377@cpoint.UUCP>, martillo@cpoint.UUCP (Joachim Carlo Santos Martillo) writes: >>As usual, the language is totally obscure, and if the actual patent >>is similarly written, I would feel that the patent officer would have >>been negligent not to have rejected the application on those grounds >>alone. The abstract quoted seems unusually clear. This covers the idea of a token ring. >>However, I doubt either MAU has any circuits borrowed from the >>Soderblom circuit. The patent does not appear to cover a specific circuit implementation, but rather, it covers the abstract notion of a token ring. >>Now, I would consider the following scenario analogous to what >>Soderblom has achieved at the patent office. >> >>It is 1890 and I build the first electric stove which I patent. >>... >>Purporting to owning the concept of cooking with >>electrically-generated heat would seem a bit presumptuous. This is what the patent process is supposed to do !! >>There is no obvious justification in granting patent rights over all >>circuits which constitute a class distinguished from a pre-existing >>class of circuits simply through minor extensions The idea of patents is to encourage inventions by allowing the inventor sole rights to a new idea for a limited time, provided he publishes the idea, so (a) everybody can use it now if they pay the inventor, and (b) everybody can use it later, and can build on it. The best patents are always sweeping ideas with many applications. If yoiu can't come up with any such, you may be able to invent process improvements or applications. ---- Oh, there I did it; I let myself get baited into an argument with Martillo (:-(. At least I've redirected followups. / Lars Poulsen <lars@salt.acc.com> (800) 222-7308 or (805) 963-9431 ext 358 ACC Customer Service Affiliation stated for identification only My employer probably would not agree if he knew what I said !!