NetNews Usenet Archive 1993 #1/NN_1993_1.iso/spool/comp/dcom/modems/19276

Internet Message Format | 1993-01-11 | 3.4 KB

Path: sparky!uunet!zaphod.mps.ohio-state.edu!saimiri.primate.wisc.edu!ames!agate!dog.ee.lbl.gov!overload.lbl.gov!lll-winken!gauss.llnl.gov!casey
From: [e-mail] (Casey Leedom)
Newsgroups: comp.dcom.modems
Subject: Re: Hayes lawyers intimidate competition (was: Hayes Press Release)
Message-ID: <[e-mail]>
Date: 11 Jan 93 05:46:22 GMT
References: <[e-mail]> <[e-mail]>
Sender: [e-mail]
Organization: Lawrence Livermore National Laboratory
Lines: 59
Nntp-Posting-Host: gauss.llnl.gov

/ From: [e-mail] (Toby Nixon)
|
| Best known as the leader in microcomputer modems, Hayes develops,
| supplies and supports computer communications equipment and software for
| personal computer and computer communications networks.  The company
| distributes its products in over 60 countries through a global network of
| authorized distributors, dealers, mass merchants, VARs, systems
\ integrators and original equipment manufacturers.

/ From: [e-mail] (Roger Marquis)
|
| Hayes is clearly earning their new reputation as a company that is
| maintaining market share via legal actions, threats and intimidation.
|
| Like IBM, Hayes 'old boy' management apparently doesn't think that it is
| cost effective to compete on technology alone.  Maybe this is why Hayes
| modems are priced substantially higher than the competition's similarly
| featured products.
|
| Toby, I can see that you are good at marketing, and an asset to your
| employer, but can you name one thing Hayes has done in the last 5 years
\ to advance modem technology?

  As others have pointed out, Hayes is just defending what the courts
have determined to be Hayes reasonable patent.  You and I may disagree
with that decision -- and I do -- but Hayes isn't doing anything wrong.
Until the system as a whole changes, Hayes would be violating its
shareholders trust by not pursuing all infringements on its legal
property.  If it didn't, it would be buried by its competition.

  As for impugning Toby and Hayes technical contributions, I think you're
being entirely unfair.

  I'm not particularly fond of the press releases I've seen Toby and
others distribute, but they haven't been too far out of line.  (Though
I'd certainly prefer to see them in comp.newprod -- a news group
*dedicated* to press releases.)  I certainly think that it's unfair to
label Toby as primarily a marketing person given his extremely cogent and
valuable technical contributions to this group.

  Finally, if Hayes has done nothing more than send Toby (and possibly
others) to the CCITT meetings to help develop the new high-speed modem
standards that we all use and love, Hayes has done more than enough to
forward the state-of-the-art.

  However, I'm certain that Hayes, and other modem companies, have done
far more than that.  One doesn't come up with these new hyper-way-out
modem technologies out of thin air.  It requires supporting a very bright
cadre of people with a lot of time invested in education and technical
interaction with others.

  I guess, in summary, I'd like to say that if you object to something,
object to what you're upset about.  In this case it sounds like you,
others and myself are all upset about the courts making a legal decision
about a technical matter that we feel is obviously wrong.  Thus, complain
about the decision or the system, but don't castigate either the
messenger or the company that's trying to survive in the system.

Casey