All:
First off, I don't see why all the doom and gloom over Grossman's email. He didn't really say anything other than that he was leaving.
Anyway. the following appeared on Yahoo biz news:
E-data strongly rebuts attack on its key Internet Patent
Demands Business Week correct July 29 article
SECAUCUS, NJ--(BUSINESS WIRE)--July 22, 1996--E-data Corporation (OTC Bulletin
Board: GIFT) has strongly refuted charges brought against its electronic distribution patent in
recent days.
The patent, entitled "System for Reproducing Information in Material Objects at a Point of Sale
Location," (U.S. Patent No. 4,528,643) was granted to Charles C. Freeny, Jr., its inventor, in
1985. It was acquired by E-data at the end of 1994. It describes the system, method and
apparatus necessary for certain types of commercial distribution of products composed of digital
data over networks such as through the Internet and CD-ROM.
In mid-1995, E-data began legally notifying the earliest infringers in an effort to enforce its patent
claims. The company (formerly known as Interactive Gift Express, Inc.) is the plaintiff in lawsuits
filed in New York (IGE v. Compuserve et al.) and in Connecticut (E-data v. MicroPatent et al.).
The suits charge that the defendants are willfully infringing on the claims of the patent. U.S. District
Court Judge Barbara S. Jones has begun the process leading to a Markman hearing, the
procedure under which she will rule on the interpretation and applicability of each of the patent's
claims. In earlier statements, E-data welcomed these actions.
Today, prompted by errors and omissions in a July 29 Business Week article on the litigation,
E-data president Arnold L. Freilich released a letter to the Editor-in-Chief of Business Week
demanding corrections. The text of the letter follows:
July 22, 1996
Stephen B. Shepard, Editor-in-Chief Business Week 1221 Avenue of the Americas New York,
NY 10020
Dear Mr. Shepard:
I am appalled at the content of the BW article on E-data Corporation (July 29, 1996).
When I was contacted by Neil Gross, Technology Editor of BW about an article on our company
and its patent, Mr. Gross assured me that he would be fair in his reporting -- despite the status of
BW's owner, McGraw-Hill, as a defendant in a lawsuit we have brought in New York for patent
infringement.
Mr. Gross' article was anything but fair. Ninety-nine percent of it expressed the views of patent
infringement defendants and our other opponents. It constituted an attack not only upon E-data
but also upon the entire patent process which is an outgrowth of rights granted in the U.S.
Constitution.
Following are some of the specific points we find troublesome in your article:
1. The article does not include comments made by David Fink, E-data's patent counsel, as to the
"prior art" described in the article. Immediately before publication, Mr. Fink was contacted by
BW and asked to comment about information that he had never seen. In the brief conversation
that ensued about Telephone Software Connection, Mr. Fink expressed his opinion of its
inapplicability to the actual claims of our patent. We will address that issue in the proper venue -- a
court of law.
2. E-data filed its lawsuits inviting the Court to interpret and apply its patent's claims. We are
looking forward to the "Markman hearing" to be scheduled by Judge Jones.
3. The article inaccurately quotes the patent language as to the definition of information, a key
point.
4. My own background is described in language which constitutes character assassination. Outside
of my personal investing activities, I have never sold a share of stock to anyone, and I have never
been barred from doing so. In 1975, while in my mid-twenties, I was the operations manager of a
large brokerage firm which went out of business. I pleaded "no contest" to securities laws
violations involving its demise after fighting the charges for over three years. Since that time, I have
been licensed to practice taxation by the Internal Revenue Service and have run a successful
management consulting firm. I have never been an investment banker, nor have I ever retired. I
supplied Mr. Gross with all of these facts.
5. The comments about our "Amnesty program" are misleading. There is nothing in the mailed
package that accuses any of its recipients of infringement. It was designed to give recipients
information about the patent and to enable them to conclude for themselves whether they are
engaged in infringing activities.
6. Mr. Gross gives his personal (or is it actually McGraw-Hill's) opinion that the patent will be
overturned. The proper venue for that decision is in Judge Jones' courtroom, and not in BW.
7. Mr. Aharonian, cited as an objective authority, is actually a zealous opponent of the patent
process and of software patents, in particular. BW did not disclose in its article that he wrote to
me several months ago about his involvement with defendants in our lawsuits. A copy of his e-mail
was supplied to BW by Mr. Fink.
In conclusion, we find it inappropriate for you to publish so biased an article. Defendants should
try the case in the court system, where it belongs, and not in the media properties that they control.
We demand that you correct these errors and omissions in both the print and online editions of
BW. We also reserve all of our legal rights.
Yours very truly, Arnold L. Freilich President, E-data Corporation
CONTACT: E-data Contact:
Arnold L. Freilich, President
(201) 866-8456
alfco@planet.net
or
Legal Contact:
David Fink, Esq., 203/325-3344
or
Media Contact:
Warren J. Cavior
The Cavior Organization
(212) 687-6070
caviorg@aol.com |
