ddp+@ANDREW.CMU.EDU (Drew Daniel Perkins) (05/11/89)
As I understand it, most companies in the IEEE 802.5 Token Ring business have payed outrageous sums of money to a Swiss man named Soderblum (sp?) for licenses on supposedly patented technology. Given that the MAC layer of FDDI is essentially taken directly from IEEE 802.5, I'm curious if this issue has been raised? Does anyone know? Drew
desnoyer@Apple.COM (Peter Desnoyers) (05/12/89)
In article <YYOB=wS00UoJM0j0oe@andrew.cmu.edu> ddp+@ANDREW.CMU.EDU (Drew Daniel Perkins) writes: >As I understand it, most companies in the IEEE 802.5 Token Ring business >have payed outrageous sums of money to a Swiss man named Soderblum (sp?) >for licenses on supposedly patented technology. Given that the MAC >layer of FDDI is essentially taken directly from IEEE 802.5, I'm curious >if this issue has been raised? Does anyone know? > >Drew Yup. FDDI comes under his patent. The kicker is that his percentage applies to the SYSTEM cost, which is a powerful incentive to package token-ring products as separate add-ons, rather than building them in. Peter Desnoyers
rlfink@ux3.lbl.gov (Robert Fink) (05/12/89)
Though many folk assume the Soderblom patent pervails in all of these cases, it is still not clear. It is the case that Soderblom tries to get FDDI manufacturers to pay the license. Some (many) pay as it is currently easier to do so than fight it. Others may yet fight it, or, may not. Bob Fink Lawrence Berkeley Lab
stev@VAX.FTP.COM (05/16/89)
*Though many folk assume the Soderblom patent pervails in all of these *cases, it is still not clear. It is the case that Soderblom tries to *get FDDI manufacturers to pay the license. Some (many) pay as it is *currently easier to do so than fight it. Others may yet fight it, or, *may not. *Bob Fink *Lawrence Berkeley Lab the problem here is that this creates a precedence for him to collect. "pay me, Froboz pays me, and so does Blaknatz. i'll sue, you know". then they pay, and pretty soon, everyone pays, because everyone else is paying. can you imagine a world where every ethernet board had a royality paid on it? or every RS232 port? stev knowles ftp software stev@ftp.com
bud@ut-emx.UUCP (C. E. Spurgeon) (05/16/89)
In article <8905151730.AA06800@vax.ftp.com> stev@VAX.FTP.COM writes: > >the problem here is that this creates a precedence for him to >collect. "pay me, Froboz pays me, and so does Blaknatz. i'll sue, >you know". then they pay, and pretty soon, everyone pays, because >everyone else is paying. can you imagine a world where every ethernet >board had a royality paid on it? or every RS232 port? > Ethernet is patented. Xerox has two patents on the system from 1975. The IEEE802.3 specs note that "The Xerox Corporation has assured the IEEE that it is willing to grant a license under these patents on reasonable and nondiscriminatory terms and conditions to anyone wishing to obtain such a license." I assume Xerox decided to let the technology out without hassling anyone for royalties. I've never heard of someone getting an Ethernet license from Xerox. Does anyone bother to do so, one wonders?
barr@frog.UUCP (Chris Barr) (05/17/89)
In article <2621@helios.ee.lbl.gov>, rlfink@ux3.lbl.gov (Robert Fink) writes: > Though many folk assume the Soderblom patent pervails in all of these > cases, it is still not clear. As I understand it, this Swedish engineer patented the TOKEN RING. Some vendors (e.g. from '76 to (present?), Prime Computer) have been selling token rings while fending off patent infringement lawsuits from Soderblum(sp?). IBM pays royalties.
rpw3@amdcad.AMD.COM (Rob Warnock) (05/18/89)
In article <13082@ut-emx.UUCP> bud@emx.UUCP (C. E. "Bud" Spurgeon) writes: +--------------- | Ethernet is patented. Xerox has two patents on the system from 1975. +--------------- Quite true. One is on collision detection (any form of CSMA/CD), and the other is on repeaters which know about collision detection. Also note that 1975 + 17 = 1992. That is, they're still in force. +--------------- | The IEEE802.3 specs note that "The Xerox Corporation has assured the | IEEE that it is willing to grant a license under these patents on | reasonable and nondiscriminatory terms and conditions to anyone | wishing to obtain such a license." | I assume Xerox decided to let the technology out without hassling | anyone for royalties. I've never heard of someone getting an Ethernet | license from Xerox. Does anyone bother to do so, one wonders? +--------------- Well, *honest* people did & do! ;-} After all, I would say the terms are quite "reasonable and nondiscriminatory" -- a $1000 one-time license fee per patent per manufacturer (i.e. $2000 total). +--------------- | In article <8905151730.AA06800@vax.ftp.com> stev@VAX.FTP.COM writes: > | > ... can you imagine a world where every ethernet | >board had a royality paid on it? or every RS232 port? +--------------- Yes, and Ethernet wouldn't have succeeded nearly as well. Thankfully, Xerox wanted Etehrnet to succeed more than they wanted to grub a few bucks. As a result, they probably sold a *lot* more Ethernet components than they would if it had been more restricted. Though note, at one point, the patent license fee for building *anything* that sat on a DEC Unibus was $100 or 10% of retail (whichever was less) *per copy*, that is, per board that plugged into a Unibus. The add-on market grumbled, but paid. There was a thriving market in Unibus peripherals... Rob Warnock Systems Architecture Consultant UUCP: {amdcad,fortune,sun}!redwood!rpw3 DDD: (415)572-2607 USPS: 627 26th Ave, San Mateo, CA 94403
LYNCH@A.ISI.EDU (Dan Lynch) (05/21/89)
Yes, Xerox owns the Ethernet patent. Two of their scientists, Dave Boggs and Bob Metcalfe, did the original work and, as with all employers, assigned the patent rights to the company. Xerox chose to license the Ethernet technology to any party for $1,000.00 as a onetime fee. Make as many copies as you like. That's pretty "reasonable and nondiscrimin- atory" I would say. Dan -------