ddp+@ANDREW.CMU.EDU (Drew Daniel Perkins) (05/12/89)
The answer seems to be that Soderblom does indeed want royalties on FDDI technology. From a knowledgeable source: > Soderblom's patent claims fundamental concepts of token ring networks, > and he asserts that IEEE 802.5 and FDDI incorporate aspects of his > patent. He wants royalties on any device incorporating these token > rings. The royalties are not prepaid by the chip vendors (TI for > 802.5, AMD for FDDI). Drew
Mills@UDEL.EDU (05/12/89)
Drew, If I understand the issues here, I should not plan to incorporate FDDI or IEEE 802.5 chips into my experimental high-speed network research plans on pain of paying royalities on the value of the entire system. Dave
rlfink@ux3.lbl.gov (Robert Fink) (05/15/89)
Dave, I asked one of the FDDI committee folk about the issue of who pays licenses on the patent relative to FDDI. His answer was that it is the end equipment manufacturer (board, router, bridge) that uses FDDI that would pay Soderblom, which is why AMD has not (he thinks) paid any license fees (they are not the end equipment supplier). In addition, the value of the system as a base for the fees has been ignored in the industry as a whole as unrealistic. Also, whether Soderblom should/will be paid anything depends on legal issues not yet addressed in courts. It has been easier for many to simply pay than worry about the larger cost of fighting. This may not remain the case. Bob Fink
zweig@p.cs.uiuc.edu (05/15/89)
>>Written 11:42 am May 12, 1989 by Mills@UDEL.EDU in comp.protocols.tcp-ip: >Drew, > >If I understand the issues here, I should not plan to incorporate FDDI >or IEEE 802.5 chips into my experimental high-speed network research >plans on pain of paying royalities on the value of the entire system. > >Dave It seems silly for anyone with a patent to try to *hinder* people from developing new technology that they might be able to collect royalties on! If Soderblom was smart, he'd *subsidize* research based on his patent, so that he'll get that much more dough in a few years. I say write the guy a nice letter to the effect "hey buddy, how'd you like the high-speed network of the future to be based on your stuff? Have I go a deal for you....." -Johnny Zweig University of Illinois at Urbana-Champaign Department of Computer Science --------------------------------Disclaimer:------------------------------------ Rule 1: Don't believe everything you read. Rule 2: Don't believe anything you read. Rule 3: There is no Rule 3. -------------------------------------------------------------------------------
henry@utzoo.uucp (Henry Spencer) (05/18/89)
In article <93400021@p.cs.uiuc.edu> zweig@p.cs.uiuc.edu writes: > I say write the guy a nice letter to the effect "hey buddy, how'd you like >the high-speed network of the future to be based on your stuff? Have I go >a deal for you....." This assumes that he is rational about such things. Particularly in legal matters, assuming that people are rational is seldom wise. "If you don't want to know the answer, don't ask the question." -- Subversion, n: a superset | Henry Spencer at U of Toronto Zoology of a subset. --J.J. Horning | uunet!attcan!utzoo!henry henry@zoo.toronto.edu
lyle@hpindda.HP.COM (Lyle Weiman) (05/19/89)
The response which the IEEE 802 committee got from these guys was (this is my recollection and interpretation) that the original patent rights had been sold to some sort of holding company, which obtains revenues from the royalties. They engaged the services of a lawyer, by the way, who easily handled the collective umbrage of over a hundred engineers (I think maybe the talent to do that goes with the territory, or something). In any case, over the years the stories that I have heard was that this company would fight very hard in court to defend this patent. I didn't get the impression that the motivation was at all altruistic. (the opinions expressed above are solely mine) --lyle