JohnRH

Although I am hoping someone has some insight into this matter - this might be considered more of a rant than an actually request for help.

I thought I'd like to 'simplify' the installation of multiple built applications on one computer by first installing the LabVIEW runtime engine, then simply copying the .exe's. To do this I downloaded the entire LV Runtime installer (over 30MB!) then installed it on a couple test stations where I'll be running several LabVIEW applications.

I then copied a few executables onto the desktop and tried to run them. I immediately got the following error:

Error -1073807202 occurred at an unidentified location

Possible reason(s):

VISA: (Hex 0xBFFF009E) A code library required by VISA could not be located or loaded.

Since I do not have an installer for this particular application, I ran an msi installation of another unrelated application, which causes the first application to start running fine.

(both of these applications use VISA based serial IO)

So ... I am guessing that the regular LV Runtime installer does not install VISA the same way that it gets installed when included with a built application?

Perhaps I am missing something but I really don't understand why installing the runtime engine separately shouldn't work. For this to work would I need to do a separate 40+ MB VISA installation? (you would think that at 30MB - the runtime would include VISA serial IO capability) I must have assumed wrong.

Oh well - I guess it's back to building installers.

Wow! I certainly came to the right place!

Thanks for the help and the examples! The "Launch Generic Process VI.vi" will come in very handy!

:beer: Cheers! :beer:

John

What I am trying to accomplish might be kind of difficult to explain, but I'll do my best here.

When launching a 'process' using the "Run VI" method ("Wait until done" set to FALSE) - how would one go about passing information to this process that is needed for the process to execute? For example - if I have a process that handles serial communications on a COM port - how could I specify which COM port to use at run time? I'd like to launch the serial IO process using the "Run VI" method, but it doesn't look like we can pass data directly to it's controls.

I've thought of setting a value in a global prior to launching the process - so that the process could then read that value to determine what COM port to use. I just think there should be a more elegant way of doing this.

To make this even more challenging, what if I'd like to launch multiple instances of this process - where each instance handles a unique COM port? (would it work if I just made the process vi reentrant?)

Any ideas?

Thanks!

I'm in.

Bryan is right - examples are a great way of learning this stuff.

here are some really basic concepts:

- use the VISA "Open" function to open a connection to your serial port

- use a VISA Property Node to set perameters such as your baud rate

- use the VISA "Write" function to send commands to you instrument

- use the VISA "Read" function to read results back from your instrument

- use the VISA "Close" function to release your serial port

attached is a REALLY simple example

you will find the devil is in the details, but if you can find some documentation is should help. You really need to find out what commands to send to the instruments, and in what format to send them. Also you will need to find out what to expect back from the instrument.

To make 'drivers' out of all this, you would wrap each of the VISA functions in you own custom VI's that automatically issue the correct commends etc.

hope this helps get you started!

John H.

I work for a company where we are contracting out some LabVIEW development work (since we can't seem to find anyone to hire). For the applications we need developed we REQUIRE the source code. The main reason for this is simply that we have programmers who are capable of supporting the software, and don't want to be dependant on an outside company for future support/upgrades. (The only reason for contracting out in the first place is due to lack of manpower.)

I'm not sure about other companies, but Data Science Automation seems to be very willing to provide source code for the applications they develope. Obviously there are agreements to sign for this kind of thing, but nothing that would prevent maintaining and upgrading the software on your own.

Keep in mind here, the software I am talking about is for in house use only - not for re-sale.

Just thought you might be interested in a customers perspective.

John H.

You might want to call your Inside Sales Rep at NI. If you haven't recieved your SSP upgrade yet then you may be the victim of a 'small' problem they had when mailing them out. A database used to print the mailing labels got messed up somehow, and the names and addresses didn't match. Fortunately the people in our receiving department know me well enough that when they saw packages from NI addressed to people who don't work here they gave them to me anyway.

Also, it looks like some of the packages may have been re-sent since I got a second set in the mail just a few days ago. So you might recieve the SSP shortly anyway.

When I called NI about this, they were very quick to point out that it was an outside company that messed up - not NI.

John H.

Another option (not necessarily better) is to convert the variant back to a cluster then just bundle the new value. Of course this requires the cluster constant which then requires you to make it a type def (for 'safety'). Maybe not worth the hassle.

:worship: I like it!

You touch on some interesting point. There has certainly been a little 'bad blood' between NI and MCC for some time. Their specific targeting of NI is a good example. Another example would be the "White Paper" MCC wrote, basically accusing NI of misleading advertising. However, it always seems to be MCC going after NI - not the other way around. (just a reminder - as Mike already mentioned. It is MCC that filed this particular lawsuit against NI)

So if NI is really going after MCC, did they bring it on themselves?

I am assuming that you all reading these messages are also against the music industry lawsuits?  Why are they taking legal action against all of these people "stealing" their property?  I look at it from a different perspective...If I were to invent something or write a #1 song I would try my hardest to protect it.  Does it make you a bully for trying to do this?  Yes, NI has taken legal action against other companies but what would you rather have them do? Sit back and let this happen?  Let people take from the ideas and claim them as their own?

graphical programming does not have to be anything like LabVIEW.  Its all about paradigm paralysis.  We see whats working and try to build off it.  That can be tough and that will often cause problems.  When the inventors of LabVIEW came up with idea it was a shift from the paradigm of text-based programming.  I'm sure in the future some intelligent  12 yr old will develop the future of programming. And it will probably be without "wires."

I am defenitely against frivelous lawsuits, but I am a firm believer in an owner receiving all credit for his creation....If I build my product X, why should I license it out if it doesn't benefit me?  If its mine, I'll do with it what I please and protect it all costs.

I agree - as long as 'protecting' patents doesn't turn into simply trying to eliminate competition. One could argue that copying music is simply stealing, but to apply the same argument to the SoftWire/LabVIEW lawsuit is stretching things a little. To me, SoftWire and LabVIEW appear to be very different from eachother. One is a way to graphicly program with Visual Basic, while the other is esentially a new programming language altogether. If SoftWire infringes on LabVIEW's patents, then what is the next product that will infringe? What about UML diagram editors that automatically generate code? Where do you draw the line? Drawing diagrams is an intuitivly human way of communicating ideas, and programming with diagrams is such an obvious evolution for programming that no one company should have exclusive rights to this method. (in my opinion)

But, when it comes right down to it. The details of the patents are not as simple as just programming by drawing diagrams, so NI might actually have a case. Not having the expertise or the patience to review the patents in detail, there is no way I can know this. It will be interesting to see what happens.

Thanks for the input!

Also, since I'm sure Mr. Bailey won't mind. Here is the email we exchanged yesterday:

Hello Mr. Bailey,

Thanks for posting your comments on the LAVA web site.  At the very

least, some of us are sure learning a lot from this dialog.

I do have some more questions.  In the VERY unlikely event that NI would

ever agree that their previous tactics were uncalled for, withdraw

any/all legal action against MCC, and perhaps even offer an apology to

MCC.  Would you be inclined to withdraw the lawsuit which requests a

stop to the sales of LabVIEW?  (or at least modify it to not include

that particular request?)  If not, then under what circumstances would

you consider doing so?  It is probably very naive of me to even be

asking these questions.  I am just wondering if it is even worth the

effort of trying to communicate with NI.

Thanks!

John Howard

Hi John,

Glad to hear from you again.  I was pleased to see our correspondence posted and encourage you; never lose faith in the power of open dialog.  I will be happy to answer your question although I have to couch the answer somewhat.  Let me explain why.  If I make a statement to you regarding a willingness to settle or specifying a settlement proposal, that statement could be used by NI, against me, in a very unfavorable way.  That is the nature of lawsuits and the constraint of being a principle in one.  I do have to be careful while trying to be as open to the public as possible.

To answer your question as best I can, let me tell you this.  Measurement Computing is not in the business of running lawsuits or stealing intellectual property in spite of what Zogas may say.  Since I designed my first (one of the first available) CPU board around the 8086 in 1979, and later that year one for the 8088, I have been in the business of innovating around the personal computer revolution.  SoftWIRE is truly innovative and so are many of our other products.  What I like to do is invent (I hold several patents from software to lighting), to lead and to run businesses.  I have founded several.

The legal system is very interesting John, but not pleasant to be involved in.  It is expensive and adversarial by design.  My father is the attorney F. Lee Bailey, and trust me, I had plenty of opportunity to enter the legal profession had I so desired.  My chosen vocation is business, (Babson College BSBA 79) and my passion is computing.  All my engineering is self or mentor taught, but hey, don't so many of us in the world of the PC share that background.

Would I have sued NI without the threats and the cost to my business that the NI threats caused?  Simply answered; no.  I would not have wanted to spend the time and money to sue NI, nor been afforded the right to sue.  Once attacked by a large and dangerous competitor will I fight?  You bet I will!  I have seen several small companies with good products just disappear under the pressure of threats or suit from NI.  NI claims to have a right to an entire technology; that of graphical programming for measurement.  I happen to believe they have no such right, and that if properly tested they would lose the patents that they claim give them that right.  I intend to test those patents in court and free not only SoftWIRE but the myriad other yet to be born innovative programs that will never be written if NI is not stopped. 

I can say without question that we will not stop the process we have started until those patents are tested in court.  I believe the test will prove they are not valid.  Having said that, and in spite of Zogas' claims that without the ability to block all competition in the field you would be denied the benefit of LabVIEW, I don't believe NI would be hurt at all by some competition, unless they failed to compete.  As one of the LAVA readers pointed out, has VEE hurt LabVIEW at all?  I believe there is a reason that  NI wants a monopoly on software for measurement and it benefits nobody by NI management and stockholders, but I cannot speculate about it here.

As for your concern that we would turn a deaf ear to an overture from NI to negotiate, you should not be concerned.  I am a businessman with over 25 years experience.  No wise businessman refuses to consider all the possible options. We have never discussed negotiation with NI, I doubt we ever will, but it will not be because I refused to listen to a reasonable suggestion.

Remain encouraged John, look at the dialog you have initiated.

Best regards,

Ben

To be honest, my only concern is the effort to "prohibiting NI from continuing to sell LabView" as Regis pointed out. All this dialog is very interesting and educational, but unless we can make a difference regarding this very specific threat, it almost seems like a waste of time.

I finally got a response from NI:

Dear Mr. Howard,

I can appreciate that you have a host of questions regarding this issue,

but as I explained in my last email, NI simply cannot comment further on

our legal position other than to reiterate our belief that MCC has

infringed on our LabVIEW patents and that we must defend our intellectual

property.  I can assure you that NI finds it most regrettable the MCC has

chosen this course of action.  Litigation can be complex, however, NI

remains committed to its customers and to developing, supporting, and

ultimately protecting LabVIEW innovative and revolutionary technology.

We thank you for being open with your concerns as well as your on-going

dedication to LabVIEW.

Sincerely,

Pete Zogas

It makes sense that the change in NI's support policy would result in a greater need for forums such as this.

At the same time, I see a need for NI to perhaps make their new support system just a little more flexible. The circumstance I am thinking of is similar to what you previously mentioned.

...Turns out that unless you personally own and are registered by name to a License of LabVIEW and a support contract, you can not receive voice support...

John Howard

I still haven't heard from NI. Maybe I am approaching this wrong? Here is what I wrote:

Dear Mr. Zogas,

Thanks for your lengthy response to my concerns.  I really appreciate you taking the time to attempt to clarify the situation.  However, there are still some issues that are bothering me.

Firstly, according to Ben Baily, even thought they did file suit first, it was only in response to two threatening letters which they received from NI.  These letters threatened a law suit and 'scared off an investor'.  Did NI honestly intend to sue MCC?

Also, I don't understand the need for threatening MCC in the first place.  When you take this kind of action, you just look like the 'big bully'.  There is no way anyone would think that Softwire could be a serious threat to NI.  I believe HP VEE was a lot bigger player at one time and to my knowledge you never pursued legal action against them!

This brings me to my final point.  It seems as though this type of legal action is becoming very normal for NI.  Intelligent Instrumentation, Mathworks, and now MCC.  Where does all this end?  Where is the benefit to your customers in all of this?  I still don't see why you feel the need to spend all these resources going after smaller companies who are not serious threats to NI.  It just isn't right!  If not down right unethical it isn't very honorable behavior in my opinion.

Just to completely above board here.  I will be posting this email dialog online so that other LabVIEW users who have the same questions and concerns as myself can hopefully have some of their questions answered.  We are all asking the same question - how is this going to affect us?  Is NI really looking out for our best interests?  We'll see.

Thanks again on behalf of the LabVIEW community for addressing these concerns.

Sincerely,

John Howard

I've sent one more 'request for clarification' to NI. I'll post here when (if) I get a response.

John Howard

I've sent a few emails to both Softwire (Measurment Computing Corp.) and National Instruments management, regarding this legal action. First it was because I was angry with MCC, then based on their response I was a little angry with NI. Now I don't know what to think.

I am posting the email dialog here in cronological order for those who are interested. At one time I had the crazy idea that we might actually be able to convince one or both companies to back off, but now it seems that they are both determined to see this legal action through to the end regardless of consequences.

This is a fairly long dialog, but I learned a lot from the responses of both companies, so thought I'd pass them along.

Here is my first email to MCC managment:

Hello,

I am a test engineer with Northrop Grumman.  I am writing this email to

express my personal opinion regarding your lawsuit against National

Instruments.  My views do not reflect the views of my company.  However,

they are probably typical views of most LabVIEW programmers.

I just learned about the lawsuit in a Control Engineering article

http://email.controleng.com/cgi-bin2/DM/y/...REC0GXT0B6Ni0An.

My first reaction was shock and anger directed at MCC.  I have calmed down

now, and am simply writing to express my opinion that this lawsuit will

likely be counter productive for your company.

By seeking an order prohibiting NI from continuing to sell LabVIEW, you are

not only targeting NI, you are targeting the LabVIEW users as well.  I'm

sure you already know that the LabVIEW user base is huge.  That is a LOT of

potential customers that you are alienating.  Even though I would never use

SoftWire, I have often considered using MCC hardware and just simply haven't

had the need to yet.  However - if you proceed with this portion of the

lawsuit - I will likely never buy MCC hardware.  I highly suspect many

LabVIEW users will feel the same way.

Just my thoughts for now.

Thanks for listening,

John Howard

Response from Ben Bailey (MCC Founder/CEO):

Hi John,

Thanks for taking the time to express your opinion.  I hope that at the end

of this letter you will take the time to express your opinion to National

Instruments' management as well.

Following is the quote from the article you site, which is simply a press

release we issued.

----------------------------------

These two patents reportedly predate the earliest of NI's patents. SoftWIRE

is seeking unspecified damages for past sales of LabView. SoftWIRE is also

seeking an order prohibiting NI from continuing to sell LabView.

Measurement Computing and SoftWIRE filed their lawsuit against NI on Jan.

15, 2003. They initially sought a ruling from the federal court that

SoftWIRE did not infringe on five patents that NI reportedly claimed

SoftWIRE had violated, or a judgment that those patents were invalid.

SoftWIRE added a sixth NI patent to its lawsuit in February 2003, and added

three more patents in May 2003, after NI reportedly charged SoftWIRE with

infringing them as well.

---------------------------------------

I draw your attention to both paragraphs and ask you to note that NI first

threatened MCC/SoftWIRE and demanded that we take SoftWIRE off the market.

NI has used the courts to remove competing software from the market.  Ask

any of the owners of Intelligent Instrumentation's now banned software.  So

far they have done so with simple threats to sue, or filed suits that were

quickly settled out of court.

Currently NI is involved in a lawsuit against The Mathworks who's aim is to

take Simulink off the market.  NI won at the first trial and sought and won

an injunction to force The Mathworks to stop selling Simulink.  The judge

has stayed the injunction pending an appeal.  Imagine how the tens of

thousands of users of Simulink and the many honest employees of The

Mathworks feel about that?  How do you feel about that?

I characterize NI's use of its patents as extremely hard line.  To my

knowledge they have never licensed their patents to another company.  They

have either stopped the sale of the product or used the dire straights the

smaller company found themselves in to make a financially (to NI)

advantageous acquisition.

Compare this to Hewlett Packard (now Agilent) who have patents they could

widely assert, and never do.  The HP strategy was always to patent

technology inventions defensively, and never to use its patents to bludgeon

smaller competitors.  Thanks to HP we have the GPIB bus (originally HPIB) to

which NI owes its very existence.  HP gave the world that very valuable bus.

Now that is taking the high ground!

Let me now turn to your concerns with our suit against NI.  Our initial

action was simply self-defense.  NI wrote us two threatening letters.  We

lost a significant investment opportunity for our technology because of

those letters which of course we were bound to show potential investors. 

We sued NI for a declaratory judgment because we believe that the NI patents

will not withstand a trial and that we do not infringe.  That suit will cost

us $2-4 million, not a penny of which can we get from NI if we win. The

courts allow us to file for a declaratory judgment because the law

recognizes it is an unfair burden for a company to have to live under

threats and lose opportunities as a result.  NI brought our suit upon

themselves.  In the process of researching prior art we found and purchased

the Fluke patents referenced in the press release.

NI has set the bar John.  NI has taken an extremely hard line approach to

the field of graphical programming and demands to own it all.  They have

sued smaller competitors and chosen battles that in my opinion were easier

to win.  If NI really wanted to put a stake in the ground then years ago

they should have sued Agilent (HP) over VEE, which is virtually identical to

LabView.

Why don't you write NI management and ask them to reasonably license their

patents and quit trying to monopolize graphical programming in test and

measurement?  I like your drive and willingness to speak up.  I appreciate

your desire to prevent a problem.  I would however suggest that you direct

your efforts at the real source of the problem.

Why not speak up at the next LabView users group?  Why not try to get other

LabView users to assess NI's patent enforcement strategy and suggest they

take the high ground like HP did?  If you do that, you might make a real

contribution to our industry.

I wish you luck, but until NI changes its methods we will pursue our rights

in court.

Best regards,

Bendrix Bailey

Founder/CEO

Thanks for responding to my concerns.  You have brought to my attention a

lot of information I was previously unaware of.

I am going to try to write NI management as you suggested.  I may also bring

these issues to the LabVIEW user community.  Right now I am feeling rather

betrayed.  Until now, I have been a fiercely loyal NI customer.  Partly

because LabVIEW is such a great product, and also because NI has been so

helpful with everything I have done over the last few years.  However, the

best products and service in the world can not justify or make up for the

hardline tactics you describe.

I still wish you guys didn't have to lower yourself to the level of NI, and

I am hoping you are not successful - at least with prohibiting sales of

LabVIEW.  However, I understand better now, and will focus on making NI

listen to us - the LabVIEW users.

Would it be OK for me to pass your letter on to other LabVIEW users who may

be as confused as myself?

Thanks!

John Howard

Mr. Bailey's second response to me:

Hi John,

Thanks for your very positive response.  This is the sort of dialog that may

benefit the community.  I know from experience (working in the PC industry

since 1979) that open beats closed any day, and everyone is better off.

If you want to share my response to your email with others then I have no

objection.  I sent you the response and it is yours to do with as you wish.

As for the outcome of the dispute between NI and MCC, NI is very much in

control of that.  We can only respond to the way NI conducts itself and we

only want a level playing field on which to compete.

My personal feelings on intellectual property are that royalties for

invention are good.  They encourage and reward investment in risky

innovations.  Injunctions, cutting off competitive offerings, stifling

innovation through closed control; all those things hurt us all and hurt the

advancement of science.

My very best regards,

Ben

Hello, and sorry for the unsolicited email.  I am just guessing at all these email addresses, so hopefully at least one of them is right.

I am a test engineer with Northrop Grumman, and a long time LabVIEW programmer.  I would just like to make a few comments regarding the recent lawsuit by Measurement Computing Corp. (MCC) brought against NI.

As a LabVIEW user, I was initially shocked and angered when I found out that MCC was asking for an order prohibiting NI from continuing to sell LabVIEW.  I have been a LabVIEW programmer for over 5 years, and have been a fiercely loyal NI customer, so I consider such an attack to be against myself as well as NI.

Rather than sit on the sidelines, I contacted MCC management to express my distaste for such a low blow tactic that directly affects the LabVIEW community.  To my surprise I received a response directly from Bendrix Bailey - the Founder/CEO of MCC.  He explained to me some of the history behind the lawsuit, including previous legal actions taken by NI of a similar nature.

It turns out that it was NI that first brought suit against MCC/SoftWire.  Furthermore, it appears that NI has been actively involved in legal action and acquisitions, which in my opinion attempts to stifle competition rather than encourage it.  Also, it seems that NI does not even provide the option of paying licensing fees or royalties for many patents which NI holds.

Clearly these issues are more complicated than can be easily explained in a short email.  However, it appears that your legal maneuvering has now put your own customers at risk!  I realize that the likely hood of LabVIEW being taken off the market is probably low - but the possibility now exists, and I think NI is largely to blame for taking such an aggressive legal approach with regard to patent enforcement.  It appears to me that NI has been blinded by corporate ambition, and has lost sight of those people most important to your company - your customers!  I have not taken these issues to the LabVIEW community yet.  I will wait for a response from NI in the hopes that maybe I still do not see the big picture.  However, I am very disappointed in what I have learned about NI thus far.

Thanks for listening!

Regards,

John Howard

Response from Peter Zogas (NI's Senior Vice President of Sales and Marketing):

Dear Mr. Howard,

Thanks very much for sharing your concerns as an NI customer and

LabVIEW user.  We appreciate the opportunity to clear the air on an

issue of great importance to NI and all LabVIEW users.

You correctly guess that there are two sides to this story, and we

think ours is much nearer the truth.

First, as you probably know from your own experience with a company

like Northrop Grumman, breakthroughs like LabVIEW are the result of

good ideas, the hard work needed to make them a reality, and the

willingness to take risks. In the case of LabVIEW, those ideas were

rewarded by the government granting to NI a number of patents on the

core concepts, and many other patents on related features and

enhancements.  The patent system is designed to encourage companies

like NI (and no doubt your company) to develop ideas that ultimately

benefit users like you, by making it worth their while to invest in

those ideas in the first place.

Second, unfortunately, and as often happens in the case of a

successful pioneer, others come along after the fact and try to cash

in on the pioneer's success.  Where a competitor does their own

homework and builds a better mousetrap, we have no quarrel.  That is

the way things are supposed to work, and the competitor is often

rewarded with its own patents. But where someone uses what a pioneer

like NI has done instead, without having their own ideas, doing their

own work or taking their own risks, the system provides NI a way of

putting a stop to the piracy by enforcing its patents.

We have done this on several occasions in the past for our LabVIEW

patents.  In every case, the company piggy-backing on our efforts has

agreed in the end to change its product or has been found by the Court

to have violated NI's rights and ordered to pay for that.  Put simply,

the LabVIEW patents have been tested and vindicated a number of times.

None of these efforts, of course, has resulted in any adverse impact

on LabVIEW users.  To the contrary, by reinforcing the value of the

LabVIEW technology, these prior efforts by NI have reaffirmed NI's

commitment to continue developing and supporting that technology.

MCC knew about these prior actions proving the worth of LabVIEW, knew

about the patents that protect it, and knew that it had a problem of

its own.  As you may know, MCC and SoftWIRE are sister companies

controlled by Mr. Bailey.  Their mission is clear: imitate what NI

does related to LabVIEW and DAQ, but sell it more cheaply.  The

SoftWIRE product in particular is an obvious imitation of LabVIEW. Of

course, we don't think their products really are as good as ours (and

we hope you agree!), but the point relevant here is that what they do

is not fair to NI and is not good for customers in the long run.  Why?

Because if MCC can get away with it, companies like NI will stop

investing the time and money to develop new ideas -- there would not

be another LabVIEW.

Knowing they had a problem, MCC and SoftWIRE started a lawsuit in

their home town of Boston.  NI did not sue first.  They did.

MCC's "answer" to all this in its press releases and marketing

materials has been that NI really invented nothing at all, and that

others had previously come up with technology like LabVIEW. Other

companies have tried the same argument and failed.  We think MCC will

fail for the same reasons.  Thousands of customers like you are not

wrong -- LabVIEW was new, it was different, and it was better.

We understand that SoftWIRE very much wants a license to the LabVIEW

technology.  It certainly needs one.  But neither NI nor its customers

has any need to give SoftWIRE what it wants, and there is no reason in

fairness why they should be rewarded for these actions.  LabVIEW is

NI's technology and NI has worked hard, and will continue to work

hard, to make it the best it can be for all customers.  Competitors

like SoftWIRE are free to develop and sell their own technology. They

just cannot copy ours.

Finally, let me comment on the prospect of LabVIEW customers being

impacted by this lawsuit.  As I have already explained, NI thinks it

is extremely unlikely that anything will come of the suit from a

customer's perspective.  It is SoftWIRE/MCC that went out, well after it

realized the problem it had, and searched out and acquired patents

from another company that it believes give it the ability to shut down

LabVIEW. Rather than simply defending its own actions or relying on

"home-grown" technology, SoftWIRE had to manufacture a legal action

against LabVIEW, even though the original owner never suggested that

those patents covered LabVIEW.

I hope you can appreciate that further comment on  NI's legal position

is not possible given the lawsuit that MCC has started.  However, I

wanted to assure you, and all NI customers, that  -- now that MCC has

started this fight -- NI wants only to protect its own technology and

make sure that its customers are safe in continuing to use it.

Sincerely,

Pete Zogas

Hello Mr. Bailey,

As suggested, I contacted NI management, and expressed my opinions regarding their aggressive tactics.

In response, I received an email from Peter Zogas, NI's Senior Vice President of Sales and Marketing, in which he simply defended NI's position.  In this email he states "Knowing they had a problem, MCC and SoftWIRE started a lawsuit in their home town of Boston.  NI did not sue first.  They did.".

Before I try to get the LabVIEW community involved, I would really like to understand both sides of this dispute.  Is Mr. Zogas telling the truth?  If so, what is your position regarding the lawsuit in Boston?  I'd really appreciate some clarification of this matter.

Thanks!

John Howard

MCC's most recent response:

Hi John,

Thanks for writing.  I don't have Pete Zogas' response to you so cannot comment on it directly, but I can comment on the statement in quotes that you included in this email to me.

Mr. Zogas is accurate in stating that MCC "had a problem" and that MCC did go to court first.  The problem we had is the problem I described to you below.  NI sent us threatening letters and those letters scared off an investor.  NI did start the process that lead to the suit by sending us not one, but two threatening letters.

Mr. Zogas may not understand the law as it pertains to declaratory judgment suits.  A company (MCC) can only sue for declaratory judgment in response to threats from another company (NI).  It is not possible for a company to create an infringing product, find the rightful owners of the patents to the invention, and initiate lawsuits.

You might ask Mr. Zogas if NI did send us threatening letters and also ask him if NI did mean its threats.  Did NI honestly intend to sue MCC as they said they would?  If they were not truthful letters, meaning they had no intention of suing, but rather would have preferred another course of action, why did NI send threats to sue? 

It is good to learn that Mr. Zogas is willing to communicate with you.  That shows his interest in the problems created when one company enjoins another from sale of their products.  Why don't you also ask Mr. Zogas why NI wants to enjoin The Math Works from selling Simulink?  Is that fair?  If he denies they sought an injunction, you can refer him to NI's investor relations web site where the matter is discussed in SEC filings.

Good luck with this John.  I applaud your efforts at open dialog and fact finding.  The issues that concern you should be of concern to many people.  I hope your efforts prove fruitful.

Best regards,

Ben

The following seems to lead to nasty errors and finally a complete LabVIEW crash.

1) drop down a 3D gauge control

2) right click gauge, select "Properties", and Add two more Needles (so the gauge now has 3 needles).

3) click OK

It appears that this bug shows up on any numeric control which you can add multiple pointers to.

The work around is to add one pointer at a time, either in the properties page, or by right clicking on the control and selecting "add needle...".