🚀 go-pugleaf

In article <1992Aug26.110545.8560@ugle.unit.no> harald.alvestrand@delab.sintef.no writes:
>In article <1992Aug26.091153.25702@cl.cam.ac.uk>, ag129@cl.cam.ac.uk (Alasdair Grant) writes:
>|> The only question in my mind is "Why OSI and not SNA".
>
>That's the easiest one to answer in this whole thread.
>Patents.
>Licensing fees.
>Subject to change without notice.
>FUD.
>IBM.

Sure. I'd go for OSI too. But I was responding to a poster from Novell.
As it happens, I think SNA beats all other proprietary technologies hands
down. As far as formal specification goes it is unmatched even by OSI.

>Yesterday I read that IBM has 8 patents on APPC Network Node (something like
>an SNA "router"), and will demand licensing of all vendors of such products

I think you're confusing the protocols with the products. I don't 
_believe_ there's anything to stop anyone patenting a particular kind
of OSI router that works in a particular way.