All:Response to Mr. F's letter to BW
I Found this in a new group and thought it might interest some of you.
Let there be no mistake - THIS IS NOT ME WRITING THIS LETTER - JUST POSTING IT HERE FOR ALL
!19960723 E-data posts lies about me on the Internet
Last week, Business Week ran a critical article about the E-data patent
activities. It was a critical article, based on the prior art history of
the Telephone Software Connection. I was quoted in the article, along with
a few other people.
Apparently (though not unexpectedly), the people at E-data are very upset
about the article, and have posted to their Web site a letter they have sent
to Business Week complaining about the article.
As a measure of the questionable character of the E-data people, one of
the paragraphs of E-data's letter makes false accusations of my activities
and my opinions, as follows:
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.
First, I am not a zealous opponent of the patent process. I have never said
or written such a statement ever. I am not a zealous opponent of software
patents. I have never said or written such a statement ever. What I do
strongly oppose is the failings of the current patent system to ensure that
patents get decent novelty and obviousness analysis in light of the prior art.
I strongly oppose large companies with ample resources not even sending in
their own prior art. But if someone has a new software idea that has never
been published, and is a non-trivial enhancement of existing technologies,
they should get a software patent. The same for any other technology. In
fact, one of the best patents I ever saw for clearly having no relevant
prior art was awarded to IBM and should have been - it was a great patent
(dealt with their PRML technology).
Second, I have never written or spoken to anyone at E-data. At the outset,
I found the whole thing boring (except for IBM settling, given that their
own prior art could kill the patent), so the last thing I would do is waste
time or money contacting E-data. I do not know what e-mail E-data thinks I
might have sent to E-data, but it wasn't from me. They might be confusing
one of my postings sent to them by someone else, or they might be recipients
of an email forgery, but I did not send anyone at E-data any email. In
fact, I am not even wasting time sending this news item to E-data.
Third, I have not and am not receiving compensation from any law firm,
corporation, or individual to be involved with litigation against E-data.
Additionally, I have not bought or sold any E-data stock (a good short). Thus
even if I had contacted E-data, which I haven't, I would not have mentioned
any involvement with anyone involved with E-data because I have not and am
not involved with this case. Not that I wouldn't mind a nice little contract
to do a comprehensive study of the whole affair, but as of July 1996, I am
not involved with anyone being harassed by E-data. That is not to say I
haven't been a conduit for information privately and publicly, but I did so
just for the fun of it.
So what E-data has posted to the Internet, and written to Business Week about
me, are lies and distortions of the truth. Someone let me know if I have
grounds to sue E-data for libel.
Greg Aharonian
Internet Patent News Service |
