NetNews Usenet Archive 1992 #27/NN_1992_27.iso/spool/comp/sys/amiga/datacomm/7833

Text File | 1992-11-22 | 3.7 KB | 78 lines

Newsgroups: comp.sys.amiga.datacomm
Path: sparky!uunet!europa.asd.contel.com!emory!swrinde!cs.utexas.edu!torn!nott!cunews!freenet.carleton.ca!Freenet.carleton.ca!aa302
From: [e-mail] (Russell McOrmond)
Subject: Re:  XPR-Bidirectional
Message-ID: <[e-mail]>
Sender: [e-mail] (News Administrator)
Reply-To: [e-mail] (Russell McOrmond)
Organization: Carleton University, Ottawa, Ontario, Canada
References: <[e-mail]> <[e-mail]>
Date: Sun, 22 Nov 1992 18:56:52 GMT
Lines: 70


In a previous article, [e-mail] (Ty Sarna) says:
>It should be trivial to find out if there is a patent. In fact, I
>believe paent holders are required to protect their patent by mentioning it.

  Ok, do the footwork.  I myself am not interested as I don't feel
the protocol is useful and worth the footwork.  Someone asked why
Bi-Modem and other protocols like this do not exist, and I gave my own
reasons why I have not even considered them.

>A retroactive situation can not exist by definition of a patent. If
>another implementation was already in use or existed, it would qualify
>as Prior Art, rendering the patent null.

  Correct, which was my whole point.  Someone could write the XPR, and
the original author could come along and say "Sorry, this one's mine,
you can't distribute this without paying me ...."

>Point is, if it IS a patented protocol, all of the above points could
>very likely STILL apply to ANY OTHER protocol we might choose to

  If a protocol was designed, patented, and then released in the
correct way it could be made extremely public.  There are
organizations such as GNU that 'Copyright' implementations of
things specifically to make things publicly available and not able
to be boarded.  This exact thing can be done with patents as well if
a chat with a lawyer previously about this was correct.

>patent then we might as well do BIMODEM, and if there is, we have to
>examine the impact (if any) that the patent has on ALL bidirectional
>file transfer protocols.

  Why reverse-engineer a protocol?  Experience over the years of doing
this type of silliness has proven than it is easier and more productive to
start from scratch with a protocol than to reverse-engineer something.

  Then again, the statement could be said that I shouldn't even be in
this discussion at this point as I have no plans to be involved in the
implementation or the usage of such a protocol.   I don't see it as
being useful for my own needs.

>Are you certain it's patented? If so, it's VERY important that we

  No, *I* am not sure, and No I have actually said a few times that
I've no desire to even look into it myself.  Again, someone asked
why the various XPR authors have not implemented a specific protocol
and I stated the reasons that I myself have not considered them.  Nothing
more, nothing less was intended to be said.

>things differently for a very specific one, but we STILL need to
>investigate. Do you see my point?

  I see your point, so do the investigation.  All I've ever said is that
I don't think it's worth the hassle  (The very hassle that this
conversation itself proves) and that I had no desire to investigate it
myself.  I will be implementing a bi-directional XPR protocol in the future
but it will either be based on a public specification or something written
from scratch.

>::    Ty Sarna, Postmaster       The Flying Circus BBX, San Antonio, TX ::
>:: [e-mail]      512/697-9134 (USRobotics Dual Std)   ::
--
 Russell McOrmond, Ottawa Ontario, Canada    | Standard Disclaimer applies.
 Freenet: [e-mail] (Faster) | Current WELMAT 'keeper of
 Home: [e-mail],  1:163/109   | sources.