Schneider Files Patent Infringement Suit Against Opto 22

R

Robert Lunnon

Walt Boyes [mailto:[email protected]] wrote: > I make my living now mostly from what I know and what I write. While > any kid can knock together software, can any kid properly debug it, > understand the applications it was supposed to perform, Some can, some can't.. > and have the liability insurance to back it up when you use it? In the US probably not, elsewhere maybe > It takes on average, more than an hour per line of code to write, test > and debug a software product for a finished product. Dunno about that, I have codes that required significantly less maintenance than that > If you don't give the developer some means of "gxtracting $$$" so he > or she or they can eat, who will develop software? People who like to develop software ... Anyway, Patents simply give an exclusive right to the inventor in order to give that inventor a head start in developing his/her "invention". At the end of the exclusivity period the invention must enter the public domain for "the common good'. This process has been perverted by software companies to exclude the competition from a marketplace rather than provide for the "common good". The long period of exclusivity reflects the difficulty of producing material goods which doesn't really exist in IT. Stamping a few CD's is trivial compared to setting up a full manufacturing plant. Not only that, quite a bit of software is being distributed with claims of copyright and patent protection. The requirement that the algorithm enter the public domain at the end of the exclusivity period should terminate any copyright protection, with a requirement that the software algorithm be disclosed in full.... You cant have the cake and eat it too guys ! > Not I. I will dig ditches, or wash cars. > > The idea that intellectual labor isn't hard to do, or should > not be rewarded is silly. > > Why, it is the same argument that says that since you as an engineer > don't need to get paid for what you know, I should hire you and pay > you what you'd get at McDonalds. This argument is wrong. Market dynamics mean that you get paid for your labour on the basis of 1. Demand : How wanted is your particular skill 2. Availability: How common is your skill 3. Return: How much money do I make from using your skill Period... The guy at MacDonalds makes less because he returns less and his skill is rather common. > Shouldn't you be entitled to the fruits of your labor, at whatever the > traffic will bear? Yes, but competition is healthy. Coca-Cola holds no patents to my knowledge over the formula for its beverage yet makes zillions each year from selling it :)
 
W
Hi, We get posts - From: [email protected] (arg1); From: Patent Lee Obvious ([email protected]) (arg2); From: Mojo Engineer <[email protected]> (arg3); Did I miss any? It's interesting that (as far as I can remember) patenting is the only subject that seems to attract anonymous posts. I understand the need for anonymity when you're going to form a new government, blow up a bridge, or slander somebody. I don't understand why anyone would need to be anonymous on this list. If they are somehow involved in patents or litigation that would cause a conflict of interest, then isn't _any_ participation here some sort of breach? They're not just pranksters, because they say somewhat interesting things. Is it because they might cause a political problem within their company? I'm just curious; any comments? Willy Smith Costa Rica
 
M

Michael Griffin

>We get posts - > > From: [email protected] (arg1); > From: Patent Lee Obvious ([email protected]) (arg2); > From: Mojo Engineer <[email protected]> (arg3); > >Did I miss any? It's interesting that (as far as I can remember) patenting >is the only subject that seems to attract anonymous posts. <clip> Mr. "Patentenforcer" seems to have picked a name which was intended to give him a vaguely menacing aura. I do not think this sort of anonymous gangsterism has any place here. If he intended to intimidate into silence anyone who disagreed with him he seems to have partially succeeded, as Mr. "Patent Lee Obvious" appears to hesitate to identify himself in replying to him. This does not cause me to look favourably upon whatever arguments Mr. "Patentenforcer" advances. I would not wish to usurp the role of the moderator in this matter, but perhaps we could endeavour to conduct this debate like gentlemen (and ladies of course). ********************** Michael Griffin London, Ont. Canada [email protected] **********************
 
P

patentsarejunk

Willy, I can't speak for all but my want for anonymousness is: FEAR Mr. PatentEnforcer, probably an employee of Schneider, is out there with a big pot of money and and a bunch of Massachusetts lawyers looking at these posts and maybe trawling for Schneider's next victim. I don't want to be that next victim. Does anyone think it is a coincidence that their first target is a small maverick company that builds I/O (the most profitable part of a PLC)? We can all do the industry a service by expressing your displeasure with Schneider's use of the legal system to stifle innovation by not buying their products. These patents aren't protecting innovation. Schneider's actions are anti-innovation and are being used to give them breathing space so that they don't have to innovate. Why buy the products of a company that's more interested in eliminating choice than in improving their own products? A boycott would seem appropriate. While this is not exactly a call for a revolution, it is provocative enough to make anonymousness useful. I am conflicted about Ken's use of the same legalized robbery system to protect himself. Should I admire his foresight in building a patent portfolio to protect his interests? Probably. (Is it really foresight or just serendipity that selling the patent to a company inclined to sue people rather than innovate provided the defense?) Should I be angry that his patent is now going to be used as a club on the rest of us? I am. It wouldn't make me happy to see Ken in the same boat as the rest of us but its a shame that a more productive use of the legal document could not have been found. We shouldn't blame Ken anymore than we can blame the guy that invented gunpowder for war. Blame Schneider for using it. I guess we'll have to start thinking about patents instead of customers. What a shame.
 
Perhaps the reason for the anonymous posts is some form of direct involvement in the issue, perhaps an employee of one of the two companies who fears for his job if identified. While i think maybe anonymous posting here is out of order, I can certainly see the reasons for it on the Internet. I maintain an account at mail.com (under engineer.com) and another at hotmail.com and when I do anything on the Internet which asks for an email address, I always put in my hotmail account. It's a good means of spam control, as I don't need the people who watch newsgroups and email lists finding my work address and spamming me with porn. As I said though, this does not apply to the list, but i would have to assume there is a reason for them to go anonymous.

CK
 
D

Diana Bouchard

Many people use different Internet "identities" for different purposes. Someone may be nervous about his job situation, or simply not want to associate the name of his employer with any arguments he might advance. Or he just wants to maintain a separation between different types of correspondence. Choosing a name which sounds intimidating is something else altogether, and can well have the effect of stifling open discussion. Diana Bouchard Pulp & Paper Research Institute of Canada (Paprican) Pointe Claire QC Canada
 
J
Stifling open discussion???????? What are people afraid that an e-mail is going to jump out to the computer and beat them about the head and shoulders based on the name of the author? An author that is afraid to use their real name! Jeff Pinegar <[email protected]>
 
With regard to anonymous postings, First off, I feel justified in my anonymity. It is not because of any internal company politics, there are serious commercial interests here. I do have a fear of what Schneider can do (is doing), and I am concerned at the uncertainty and doubt this has put on progress and future product development. I do not wish to publicly indicate the company I work for. It is a small company not currently involved in litigation, and we do not have the resource to defend any patent lawsuit. There are many industry people who are lurking on this list, but never post their comments or opinions. I have just gone one step further and posted some opinions that would not be there unless I could remain anonymous. This is nothing to do with acting like Ladies or Gentlemen, this is discussion that would not be possible unless anonymity was available, and there should be more of it. I do feel strongly about this issue and wish to express my personal opinions. I also believe and have been told my opinions are widespread among the very many small automation companies. Thankyou also Mr Patentsarejunk for saying many things I also believe should be said. I do not feel intimidated by Mr Patent Enforcer (give us some more of your comments Mr Enforcer), it is Schneider who are acting in an intimidating manner and misusing their market position - and now being less friendly that their auction has not been well received, with new letters going out suggesting companies rethink on their (lack of) bidding for licenses. If there was any justice then Schneider would desist with action and put the ownership both of these patents into the public domain. Lets just hope that the revenue that they gain from this exercise is exceeded in the other direction by loss of sales as people look less favourably on the company. In my small sphere of contacts I know of companies taking that attitude, on a global scale it surely must exceed the $8M bid listed on the Ipex site. And one last comment in the wishful thinking category, considering the approach Schneider originally took with the auction. Maybe we could take an open source approach to establishing the value of these patents. That is openly and publicly debating each and every claim until we determine exactly what does or does not infringe - hopefully with the outcome that nobody would even have to consider going to court or making settlements. OK, back to reality. Schneider want royalties for something they didn't invent. Patent Lee Obvious ([email protected])
 
Anonymity is nothing that one should be berated or chastised about. I am quite sure that few of you "SIS Listers" know that the IEEE Standard 500-1981 (not sure of the date) related to the gathering of failure-rate data for the nuclear industry, was developed anonymously. BTW, I agree with Mr. or Ms. "A". I too, am concerned about the bigger fish gobbling up the little ones via patent molestation. And, it happens without equitable compensation. It is not done tastefully, but it is "legal." Furthermore, I am not a member of any "right-wing conspiracy." Wake up, people! On a distantly related subject... in a recent class action suit against one of the credit card companies, 1.8 million card users were allotted $3.57, each. The law firm that brought the suit received over $2,000,000. Yes, justice is really "blind." Regards, Phil Corso, PE (Boca Raton, FL)
 
P

patentsarejunk

> Stifling open discussion???????? What are people afraid that > an e-mail is going to jump out to the computer and beat them > about the head and shoulders based on the name of the author? No. It might be that we are afraid of lawyers jumping out of Massachusetts and beating us over the head and shoulders with a screwed up legal system based on who we work for. Especially because we haven't done anything wrong.
 
P

patentsarejunk

> I do not feel intimidated by Mr Patent Enforcer (give us some more > of your comments Mr Enforcer), it is Schneider who are acting in an > intimidating manner and misusing their market position ... I don't feel intimidated by him given that I am anonymous as he is. I'd be surprised to see him post again. I don't think the Schneider lawyers would appreciate such postings. > and now being less friendly that their auction has not been well > received, with new letters going out suggesting companies rethink on > their (lack of) bidding for licenses. These letters are analogous to the guys with no necks going to the local merchant and threatening to break his legs if he doesn't pay "protection". I guess when lawyers do it, its OK. > If there was any justice then Schneider would desist with action and > put the ownership both of these patents into the public domain.... I know you don't seriously think that this will happen -- unless some users start complaining non-anonymously. But, in a way, Schneider is simply reacting to a legal environment that enables this kind of blackmail. They are not the cause of the problem. The root cause is where the laws are written that allow this kind of thing. Nobody wants to hear about the ugly "p" word here. But, sooner or later those jack booted lawyers are going to shut down the company where you work. And, you'll have my sympathy too. But if you want to stop it you have to make changes politically. The "p" stuff IS going to force itself into your life whether you like it or not. It is an inescapable fact of the modern world. This patent stuff is only one obvious aspect of it.
 
Well, Fisher Rosemount recently donated patents to the Fieldbus Foundation. It does not seem that Schneider are being very friendly with the OPC Foundation though. > > If there was any justice then Schneider would desist with action and > > put the ownership both of these patents into the public domain....
 
K

Kipton Moravec

> I make my living now mostly from what I know and what I write. While any kid can knock together software, can any kid properly debug it, understand the applications it was supposed to perform, and have the liability insurance to back it up when you use it? > >Shouldn't you be entitled to the fruits of your labor, at whatever the traffic will bear? I guess my issue of it is, that if you have been doing software a long time you probably do not open up the source code to the world. You have probably picked up some tricks of the trade that allow you to do things efficiently. But if a company suspects that you may have used an algorithm that they have a patent for, they can force you to disclose your source code to them or their agents. It does not matter if you have never heard of them or their patent before. Then you could be in the position to pay them royalties for copies of software that are long sold. I know of a patent for the least squares algorithm. The author rearranged the equations so it was easy to add new points -- to have a running least squares total. If you do that you are liable to pay royalties. Another example is the .GIF picture format. The owner of the patent (I can't remember who, I think Sperry-Univac) took no action until the format was very popular, and in wide use by a number of software companies, THEN they decided to demand royalties for programs that saved images in .GIF format.
 
G

George Robertson

OK, but isn't the heart of this patent the use of a PLC as a web server? How much intellectual investment did that take? Let's see, I think I'll patent the use of internal combustion engines to transport microprocessors from plants to point of sale. George G. Robertson, P.E. Manager of Engineering Saulsbury E & C
 
W
I think the FactoryCast technology from Schneider Electric is extraordinary. I have worked with Allen-Bradley and Rockwell Software tools for several years. In fact, I have done some wild things with their systems beyond what they thought they could/should do. However, over the past year, I have come to love the new Java-based components that I can use in the FactoryCast web server from Schneider. I think boycotting Schneider would stop the innovativeness that could come from working with the Schneider FactoryCast web server and the backplane communications it provides. I know there are a large number of developers who should focus on components that can take advantage of Schneider's product as opposed to abandoning it in some goofy boycott. Keep the progress going!! Let Schneider and Opto fight out whose system will support the Java-based components we develop and use.
 
V

Vitor Finkel

At 13:18 30/03/01, Moravec + Boyes wrote: >From: Kipton Moravec <[email protected]> > >Walt Boyes wrote: > > I make my living now mostly from what I know and what I write. While >any kid can knock together software, can any kid properly debug it, >understand the applications it was supposed to perform, and have the >liability insurance to back it up when you use it? >............clipped for brevity........... >Another example is the .GIF picture format. The owner of the patent (I >can't remember who, I think Sperry-Univac) took no action until the format >was very popular, and in wide use by a number of software companies, THEN >they decided to demand royalties for programs that saved images in .GIF >format. If I understand the situation correctly, gangsters on 20/21th Century do not charge merchants for protection, or threaten them with "accidents". They invent anything silly but usefull, let it be spread to a very large market use, while keeping a low profile, then surface and collect... I can not believe the laws on Intellectual Property were invented for that purpose, but then old laws against people drinking alcoholic beverages were not intended just to make some guys wealthier... Society should take action to fix those loopholes. They are unfair, abusive, and predatory, IMHO. Vitor Finkel [email protected] P.O. Box 16061 Tel (+55) 21 285-5641 22221.971 Rio de Janeiro Brazil Fax (+55) 21 205-3339
 
Top