Subject: Re: Request for Info: Edata Corporation
From: (Adam J. Richter)
Date: Sun, 21 Jul 96 15:54 PDT

	Here is some news about the E-data patent.  It is from
Gregory Aharonian's "internet patent news service", which is 
largely self promotion for Mr. Aharonian's "prior art search
sevice" and editorial, but does occassionally include useful

Adam J. Richter				  Yggdrasil Computing, Incorporated
(408) 261-6630				  "Free Software For The Rest of Us."

>Subject: PATNEWS: E-data gets its day in court
>Date: Mon, 24 Jun 1996 20:38:43 -0400
>From: (Gregory Aharonian)
>Subject: PATNEWS: E-data gets its day in court
>!19960625  E-data gets its day in court
>    Last Friday, the first round of court battles dealing with the Freeny
>patent (for which E-data is the current owner) occurred in the US District
>Court for the Southern District of New York.  The court activities dealt
>with the infringement case that EData filed against 14 companies, including
>McGraw-Hill, Compuserve, Broderbund, and Waldenbooks.  From press accounts,
>the place was packed.  The original case was filed last August by E-data.
>    Judge Barbara Jones ordered E-data to present its detailed infringement
>analysis and specific patent claims to each defendant by August 21, 1996, and
>further ordered a conference to be held on September 6, 1996 for all parties
>who have not settled with E-data by that time.
>    E-data president Arnold L. Freilich observed that IBM, Adobe and VocalTec
>among others had already taken licenses and that license negotiations are in
>progress with many companies not named in the NY lawsuit.  "We hope that the
>remaining defendants realize that it will make sense for them, too, to talk
>to us about settlement," he stated.
>                              ====================
>    Settling makes sense?  Settling with E-data makes no sense for defendants.
>The patent should never have been awarded.  Those companies settling are
>either wasting money (to avoid being hassled), or paying money to legitimize
>bad software patents.
>    Given the current group of defendants (including McGraw-Hill), I assume
>they collected enough money to fund a killer patent-busting prior art search
>(which I can lament is not being done by me), as a properly funded prior art
>search will bust the Freeny patent (though at this point in time, the bust is
>more based on an obviousness attack [i.e. people wrote extensively about A, B
>and C, so A+B+C is too trivial to patent], than novelty [which would require
>the big bucks to sift the publications of the 1970's to find specific prior
>art for a novelty attack]).
>    If they fail, I am thinking of organizing a pool to fund the killer
>search.  If E-data can ask tens of thousands of companies for thousands of
>dollars to license their patent, why not stop them with the reverse, asking
>thousands of companies for hundreds of dollars to bust the patent once and
>for all.  I have been offered some high priced legal power at pro-bono rates
>to take on E-data, why not have some fun.
>    Anyone in court last Friday with any stories, please send them my way.
>Greg Aharonian
>Internet Patent News Service
>P.O. Box 404, Belmont, MA, 02178
>(for info on free subscription, send 'help' to )
>(for prior art search services info, send 'prior' to )