Silicon Investor (SI) -- The First Internet Community

STOCKTALK

We've detected that you're using an ad content blocking browser plug-in or feature. Ads provide a critical source of revenue to the continued operation of Silicon Investor. We ask that you disable ad blocking while on Silicon Investor in the best interests of our community. If you are not using an ad blocker but are still receiving this message, make sure your browser's tracking protection is set to the 'standard' level.

Technology Stocks : Citrix Systems (CTXS) -- Ignore unavailable to you. Want to Upgrade?

To: David Perfette who wrote (7235)	11/20/1999 5:54:00 PM
From: David Lawrence	Read Replies (1) \| Respond to of 9068

Thanks for posting that. It is indeed quite a bit different from the article previously posted, in that it defines the patent to UNIX and Linux machines with X Windows. Has the US Patent Office given up on the concept of prior art? It's simply amazing what they will grant patents on. Whether or not they are enforceable is another matter - something else to clog the courts and enrich lawyers. Here's another example of this foolishness: news.cnet.com Companies could owe substantial back payments for use of a popular Year 2000 software fix that recently became patented. Aircraft manufacturer McDonnell Douglas has received a patent for a software technique called "windowing" that is used to fix computer code and has handed the patent over to the technique's inventor. Lawyers for inventor Bruce Dickens are reportedly threatening legal action to enforce payments from Fortune 500 companies that have used software fixes based on the now-patented technology. Bill Cray, Dickens's attorney, would not comment on the specifics of the claim but said he is writing letters to companies that may have infringed on the patent. This could have serious repercussions for the thousands of companies--roughly 90 percent--that have used some form of "windowing" to fix their computer systems, said Kazim Isfahani, an analyst with Giga Information Group. Most popular technique Windowing is the most popular of several techniques used to enable software to recognize four-digit year fields. A typical windowing fix would reconfigure software so that years entered as 00-29 are assumed to represent 2000 through 2029, and years entered as 30-99 represent 1930 through 1999. Over the next month, the California law firm of Levin and Hawes will begin a systematic effort to contact U.S.-based organizations in an attempt to procure a lump sum for previous use of the patent, according to Isfahani. "We think this is ridiculous," Isfahani said. "I suspect many companies will end up paying off as some form of nuisance fee, while smaller companies will try and fight this in court. They will be the ones that set the precedent on how this will go forward." Giga Information Group expects that Dickens's attorneys will seek lump sum payments ranging from $50,000 to $100,000 from firms that already have used the Y2K fix. Windowing is considered a faster way of fixing corrupted code than more traditional methods--such as the expansion method, for example, which allows software to recognize four-digit dates, like the year 2000. After the turn of the century, the licensing fees will increase substantially for firms that are unwilling to agree to the initial offer, Isfahani said in a brief.

To: David Perfette who wrote (7235)	11/22/1999 5:10:00 PM
From: WinWiz	Read Replies (4) \| Respond to of 9068

The description of the patent GraphOn has is publicly available, since it's been awarded. If you're really interested in exactly what the patent really covers, you should look at it. Patent documents are available on-line (for a charge) or on CD in 6 USPTO Depository Libraries across the US (for free). The patent is not meant to address remoting 'transport' protocols themselves (such as ICA & RDP). It deals with the idea of conversion between UIs. What Exodus invented, apparently before anyone else did, was a dynamic method of converting a workstation UI API call-set, such as Windows, to another, such as X or Java, for the purpose of remote display and interaction. The key here appears to be when 2 or more dissimilar UI APIs are involved on each end. Citrix presumably would not be in violation of this patent when remoting Windows applications from a Windows server to a Windows client workstation. But presumably Citrix would be in violation when remoting Windows applications from a Windows server to a Unix workstation or other non-Windows client. That patent could spell trouble for Citrix, as it might hamper, or even eliminate, Citrix's ability to go after the Windows server to non-Windows client market, which would be bad news if you assume that Microsoft will eventually 'own' the market for remoting Windows apps from Windows 2000 servers to Windows client devices. Now, I'm no lawyer (I'm an old technologist), but the patent document seems pretty clear to a technically knowledgeable reader. So what remains is if the other patent requirements are born out under court challenge (any prior art? BTW, I'm not aware of any but of course there might be) (useful invention? If it weren't, Citrix wouldn't be pursuing this biz) (made available in commercially available product? Exodus did that). So, if it were to get to a point where Citrix is backed into a corner, probably via a court case, the question then becomes: will GraphOn license patent rights? Perhaps you can take solace in that old saying that "everyone has their price", so the answer to that one is probably "yes". I.e., this is probably a speed bump issue, but one that may draw concern for Citrix shareholders while bolstering those of GraphOn in the "short term" (1-2 yrs). Someone here remarked that the quality of discussion here is unusually good for a stock thread...I agree wholeheartedly. Although I don't drop in on CTXS very often anymore, I always enjoy it when I do.