snipped-for-privacy@bbs.cpcn.com wrote:
>> I presume other Bell Labs patents were also available free;
>> indeed, I never knew of AT&T making money from licensing
>> its many inventions. It appears patents were more for
>> freedom of use than profit. IBM adopted a similar policy
>> in the 1950s. Both did so from anti-trust settlements.
> Don't I wish that were true! A company I once worked for got
> sued by AT&T for patent infringement, and spent a considerable
> effort in proving that we were not infringing. They came back
> with something to the effect that, "You don't get it. Here are
> fifty more patents you are infringing on. We have thousands more
> once you prove that you're not infringing on these. Just give up > and pay us!"
> I don't know the whole story -- I was not working there at the
> time -- but as I understand it, the settlement was a yearly fee
> in a rather significant amount (for a small company).
> Mark
Folks at misc.int-property may find this post interesting.
U.S. Constitution, Article. I. Section. 8. (1): " . . . promote the Progress of Science and useful Arts" -- how all those legal complexities in the patent system and all those all-too-easily obtained trivial patents are _really_ employed in practice?