A synopsis of the full-page EETimes article on E-data ...
Electronic Engineering Times June 17, 1996 (BTW ... text is not online)
Basically, it is a fair and unbiased article on the company and their patent. (Fink & Freilich were both interviewed). Nothing here not known to this thread with possible exceptions of, all quoted.
"The licensing costs are on a sliding scale, depending on the licensee's net sales. Companies with net sales between $3M - $5M would pay $44K for an annual license in 1997, and a company with net sales below $25K would pay $550. The fees would rise incrementally each year through the end of the life of the patent in January 2003.
CompuServe does not believe it is infringing on the patent, according to their corporate Lawyer Gail Whitcomb.
IBM refused to comment, but confirmed that it has licensed the patent.
The patent was filed in 1982 and granted in 1985, Fink explained. The patent was reviewed not only by the patent office, but also by a patent assistance firm... Fast forward 10 years, Fink said. Everybody says I could have done that. Well they didn't. IN FINK'S OPINION, THE PATENT DIDN'T GET BROADER, THE APPLICATIONS GOT WIDER.
Now for the juicy stuff. Brian Santo (bsanto@cmp.com) has an editorial box on the page which concludes with "IN MY OPINION, WHAT THE INVENTOR HAS DESCRIBED IS A NETWORK, AND IF SPECIFYING AN APPLICATION FOR THAT NETWORK IS A VALID BASIS FOR PATENT, SOMETHING IS VERY WRONG WITH THE U.S. PATENT SYSTEM". (His jist is that the patent is too good to be true, but does write that he is no legal expert. "
"IF ANY OF YOU ARE PATENT LAWYERS, LET ME KNOW WHAT YOU THINK, AND I'LL SHARE IT WITH THE REST OF THE READERS".
OK, investors. I know a few of you out there are attorneys. Flame on! |
