Softwire

[daytonaman]

I also think the comparison to the music industry was not correct. A better comparison would be Microsoft. I do think NI has the right to defend their property, whether it is considered morally right or not. People and companies deserve to reap the benefits of their labors. We have to stop trying to punish companies for success. I have not reviewed Softwire yet (but will do so soon), but if NI believes it infringes on thier property, they have a right to defend that property with threating letters or whatever legal means are available to them. The courts will, after all the dust settles, decide if they are validated. Until then, we will have to see how this all plays out.

[garvacious]

I'd just like to express my opinion on the lawsuit issue thus far. I have witnessed NI's strong-arm tactics in the past re: LabVIEW patents and have not always been happy about them. However, I don't believe this battle is really about Softwire or LabVIEW at all.

Clearly, Softwire is not really a danger to NI. However, MCC's hardware products are. The first time I received one of MCC's advertisements comparing NI's DAQ hardware to their own my initial reaction was "I wonder when the lawsuit is coming". Not only did MCC copy most of NI's PCI boards exactly, they went so far as to give them similar model #'s, then brag about how it was the same hardware, just a few hundred dollars cheaper. While this may ultimately benefit us customers by bringing down the price of DAQ boards, it was, I believe, a low blow on MCC's part, and something NI would be sure to want to challenge in court.

I am not a patent lawyer and thus have no legal expertise to base the following statement on, but I'll make it anyway. I think NI's goal here is more about punishing MCC than eliminating Softwire. It is probably easier for NI to win in court with the LabVIEW patent (given lots of precedent due to NI's previous LabVIEW wins) than with their hardware patents. If you read Pete Zogas' (NI VP) statement earlier in this thread you will notice that he alludes to MCC copying NI's hardware. This is the real basis for this legal battle. After all, software is not where the big profits are for either company.

:beer:

[JohnRH]

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?

[Itchyzip]

You all bring up a very interesting topic. I have sent an email to Mr. Bailey to ask for his response on the hardware issue. Now that I think about it, I have seen Measurement computings ads attacking NI for some time now. My favorite is the NI sales guy ad campaign (where they claim that NI's prices are higher because they have to pay for sales guys). Either way....I don't know much about the law but is it legal to copy someone elses board. Its blatently obvious I think. I read the white paper and it sounds to me like MCC just reverse engineers the boards NI makes and sells them for less...even using the same name. (is this legal?) If thats the case, then of course they can cost less...they didn't have to dedicate so much time toward the engineering of the product. Of course this could all be rumors I don't know. I would really like to hear MCC's stand on this issue.

[BendrixBailey]

Hello again to the LAVA Forum,

Sorry to have been so long out of touch, but it was interesting to get back on line and read the number and variety of ideas that have been added to the forum since my last posting on February 10th. I appreciate the dialog and the sincerity of your questions. I will do my best to answer them all in no particular order.

Most interesting to me was to see several of you come down on one side or the other regarding my comments of encouragement to John Howard that invoked images of the conversations that led to the founding of the United States. I especially enjoyed the quote by Samuel Johnson. Frankly, I am much more interested in ideas and principles than in legal battles, so for my own pleasure I am going to add some thought to that debate.

There was no attempt to equate MCC with patriotism in that statement. Both MCC and NI are good companies and global in reach. Neither has a claim to patriotism that exceeds the other. MCC does try to do its patriotic best when the time comes. For instance, we pay 100% of the salary of reservists called to duty (as do many USA companies). This is voluntary and provides no financial benefit to the company. We also donated $80,000 to local, regional airports for the purchase of two baggage scanners after 9/11. So we like to think we care about our country. I am sure the good people at NI feel the same.

The point I was making in my encouragement to John Howard had nothing to do with patriotism. It had to do with the principle of open dialog. John appeared to be somewhat discouraged and I pointed out what sort of great events begin as smple open dialog. Open dialog has freed ideas and humans from uncountable shackles. Open and free speech should be a part of every society, and that is a principle I strongly believe. There are always risks associated with open dialog. Risks to the powerful and risks to the speaker, however great they may be though, an open dialog is the only road to understanding and resolution.

That leads me to the next subject; Mr. Zogas retreat to the security of silence in the face of pending litigation. Several of you commented that silence is suspect, and well it should be. Pending litigation does not require silence. Making statements while litigation is pending simply requires that the speaker speak honestly and with basis in fact. Litigation is about discovering the truth and reaching a just verdict (no cynicism here please). Honest statements based in fact are all that are allowed in court lest perjury be committed. Anything honest and based in fact that will come out at trail can be said at anytime prior to, or during trail, without risk to the speaker. In fact, in civil litigation, secret evidence is expressly forbidden as each side must disclose to the other party all that it knows some time prior to the start of trial. The process is called Discovery.

Mr. Zogas or others at NI could certainly speak out without risk, as do I. When they choose not to you should be aware it is simply that; a choice. Lawyers always want to run the show, and they do tell client to say nothing as it may be used against you. Well the lawyers have their day then move on to other clients. They don

[garvacious]

Hello again all,

I'd like to add to my earlier message (a few posts ago) in which I claimed that "software is not where the big profits are" for NI and MCC. Since I made this comment I've recieved a few messages asking how I could make such a silly claim. Perhaps I misspoke- I'm sure NI makes lots of money on LabVIEW. My point was that selling hardware (i.e. DAQ boards) is a better way for NI to grow their business than selling software (when was the last time you saw a revolutionary new software product from NI?) Thus they would probably want to protect this part of their business as much as possible from a reverse engineering effort. I apologize for any misunderstanding there.

[BendrixBailey]

Hi Garvacious, your assesment of the profit picture may not be far off. An ex-NI employee once told me that he recalled top management at NI saying that the "software is the sizzle but the hardware is the steak". I have never seen a product line P&L for NI but my outside analysis suggests that they have made most of their money in GPIB and other hardware, and spent most of their money developing and selling software. They do post gross profit margins well above those typical for hardware alone (even at their prices) so the software is making a contribution to that. However, only an informed NI executive could tell you about the profit by product line so those other folks should not be too hard on you for your earlier comment. You might be close to right!

[Michael Aivaliotis]

... Open dialog has freed ideas and humans from uncountable shackles.  Open and free speech should be a part of every society, and that is a principle I strongly believe.  There are always risks associated with open dialog.  Risks to the powerful and risks to the speaker, however great they may be though, an open dialog is the only road to understanding and resolution ...

I agree on this.

So far I have been impressed by the interest this one topic has generated on our Forums. It started as a simple announcement and took on a life of its own. I appreaciate the contributions everyone has made and encourage those that are silent to participate. It just shows that it is important to have an open forum where these discussions can take place. It also helps to have the history of all comments made so it can all be put into perspective. -- I look forward to more exciting discussions like this. ...

[djadjok]

Very interesting and informative discussion here

[evargas]

(Note: I edited this comment. The added word is in italics. Just to make things clearer. My English is... well, not my first language.)

Would you be inclined to withdraw the lawsuit which requests a

stop to the sales of LabVIEW?

I have a similar question after reading all this. (and boy, it is a lot!) I am far from been a lawyer (and I am somewhat glad ) , so my question may be naive: Why is the lawsuit to "stop selling LabVIEW" instead of a "cease and desist" from sending threatening letters? If you are sure both products are different, then I don

[pallen]

From what I read on SoftWIRE's website and from Mr. Bailey's posts here on the LAVA forum, I don't see that SoftWIRE is a copy of LabView at all.

I have also used an older "tool" that is similar in some ways to LabView. Visual Designer has a number of similarities to LV. But many differences are obvious even to a newbie like myself.

Although I have no way to confirm this, I had been told that Intelligent Instruments ceased distribution of Visual Designer because of legal pressure from NI.

Unfortunately, very little information can be found regarding Visual Designer.

[BendrixBailey]

Regarding Visual Designer, yes, it was discontinued as a part of a settlement between NI and Burr Brown, who were the parent company of Intelligent Instrumentation, the creator or Visula Designer.

Visual Designer was a very good product. Faster than LabView and easier to use. In fact, in a couple of trade show shoot-outs, Visual Designer beat LabView. This was clearly the contender for chief LabView rival at the time. Although the terms of the settlement are not public, it is somewhat curious to speculater about Burr Browns motivation for settling the law suit. The executives at Intelligent Instrumentation were ready and able to fight NI in court so were very disappointed with the parent when the settlement was forced on them. One can only speculate about the reasons Burr Brown chose to settle. NI may have been a large customer for Burr Brown components?

Anyone who doubts that NI will wipe a product off the face of the earth need only examine the case of Visual Designer. What about the users who invested in Visual Designer to build measurement solutions? Who is next? The many thousands who rely on Simulink?

[garvacious]

In reply to djadjok's message above- Actually, Mathworks is still selling Simulink and actively promoting it- Mathworks came to the facility where I work and did a sales presentation on it. I thought that NI had successfully sued to prevent them from selling Simulink. Perhaps there is something I don't know here.

[BendrixBailey]

While it is correct that Simulink can still be purchased, and that The Mathworks is promoting it, it is also true that NI has asked for and been granted an injunction against future sales of Simulink. That injunction was stayed pending an appeal. The oral arguments of the appeal were heard on July 6th, 2004, and a decision is likely sometime in the October timeframe. If the verdict from the trial is upheld then the injunction will be as well. What will those who depend on Simulink do then? This is the question that may face LabVIEW users eventually if SoftWIRE prevails at trial and is granted an injunction against sales of LabVIEW. None if this is pleasant folks. It is all simply the inevitable outcome of Dr. B's bullying tactics. If NI had adopted a generous approach to patents as Agilent (Hewlett Packard) always has, there would be no problems on the horizon. Even if they demanded royalty payments as most patent holders do, it would not deprive the community of useful software. It is time for Dr. B to move his company to the next level.

By the way, anyone interested in SoftWIRE will be able to download a fully unlocked copy from our web site next week. We have decided to make SoftWIRE a completely FREE product to promote adoption of a graphical programming standard in the Visual Studio environment. This announcement coincides with the release by three significant hardware vendors of support for SoftWIRE, with more on the way.

I hate to say it LabVIEW users but all closed communities fail. Closed communities in computation fail faster! SoftWIRE is open and available, so if we can't open the LabVIEW model, then it is time we all joined in to replace it with an open model. Give SoftWIRE a look! It is FREE.

[rk4th]

What will those who depend on Simulink do then? 

This is the question that may face LabVIEW users eventually if SoftWIRE prevails at trial and is granted an injunction against sales of LabVIEW.  None if this is pleasant folks. 

It is all simply the inevitable outcome of Dr. B's bullying tactics. 

It is time for Dr. B to move his company to the next level.

By the way, anyone interested in SoftWIRE will be able to download a fully unlocked copy from our web site next week.  We have decided to make SoftWIRE a completely FREE product to promote adoption of a graphical programming standard in the Visual Studio environment.  This announcement coincides with the release by three significant hardware vendors of support for SoftWIRE, with more on the way.

I hate to say it LabVIEW users but all closed communities fail.  Closed communities in computation fail faster!  SoftWIRE is open and available, so if we can't open the LabVIEW model, then it is time we all joined in to replace it with an open model.  Give SoftWIRE a look!  It is FREE.

Simulink will just be adjusted so that it doesn't violate the patents in question, and life will move on.

You chastise NI for using the same tactics you are using. I find this either hypocritical - if you truly believe the principles you present. If you don't really believe these principles, then you're just another businessperson, one who happens to want to displace LabVIEW.

Is SoftWIRE truly open, or just free? Post where we can download the source code.

[JohnRH]

Is SoftWIRE truly open, or just free? Post where we can download the source code.

1398[/snapback]

Not only that - SoftWire isn't REALLY free since you must have Visual Studio to use it (~$1000). Then on top of this you are stuck with the Windows platform. (vs. Windows, Mac, Linux, Pharlap, RTX, ...).

Mr. Bailey, what is your definition of 'open' here anyway?

Who is looking out for the customer in all this mess!?

You can get upset at NI all you want, but it doesn't change the fact that LabVIEW is a superior product. I will NOT be forced into using something inferior as a result of all this!

Alright, I'm going to stop writing now before I really get worked up.

[rk4th]

Sorry - I didn't really have time to finish everything I wanted to say, and it came off harsher than I meant! There appears no way to edit your own posts...

Anyway - It is fine to argue your case as an interested businessman. I have no problem with that at all! However, if the value criteria involves some of the principles that Mr. Bailey raises in this thread, then he and NI seem morally equivalent, and I don't understand the sky-is-falling argument.

The definition of "open" has many better defenders than I; it seems that in our corner of the world, open could mean either "extensible by 3rd parties" or "open-source." Some flavors of Linux are "open" as meant in the second definition. LabVIEW, Visual Studio, Matlab, etc, are all equally "open" as meant in the first definition. An individual company owns each of these packages. If you really believe that Visual Studio is truly open, while LabVIEW is not, then simply consider the changes Microsoft made from VB 6 to .NET. Ask anyone who had to rebuild lots of applications. Every new version of a product has a few new tweaks that need to be accounted for, but this was pretty extreme! MS did do its best to help customers with the transition, and the changes very well might have been worth it. However, the point must still be made that this kind of move shows that there are definite limitations to how "open" Visual Studio is!

To respond to John's post... I think that you can get into VB for less than a grand, but with definite limitations.

And finally, I forgot to point out... I also dislike Dr. B. If you are going to go cheap on drinks, do NOT skimp on the Dr. Pepper! It is worth the full 35 cents a can! Several folks have some great sites on such Dr. Pepper clones. Dr. B. is sold at HEB.

http://www.fakedrpepper.com/drb.html

http://www.fakedrpepper.com/main.html

However, my problem with Dr. B. is the atrocious flavor, not bullying, so I am confused....

[Michael Aivaliotis]

Sorry - I didn't really have time to finish everything I wanted to say, and it came off harsher than I meant! There appears no way to edit your own posts...

1407[/snapback]

Actually, you CAN edit your own posts. However you have a time limit of 60mins. to do so. In other words, you have an hour to realise that you shouldn't have wrote that... Beyond that, a polite personal message to me with a justification will do it.

[BendrixBailey]

It is nice to see that the community is still interested in this topic. Here is a quick reply to the points made by rk4th and JohnRH. RK, you must know something special about Simulink and the NI patents to be able to dismiss them so quickly. If you have the

[didierj]

It was NI that started seeking injunctions against competitors and continues to

In the time I was coach of a dozen pupils in gymnastic I alway had to repeat that I really don't care who started, but there have to be alway TWO parties for a fight! .. and both got punished...

Better than seeking injunction back would be to try and find a solution to save everybody's neck.

Does anybody know if there is already a user-group/community which want to stop all this bullshit, e.g. try to make pressure on NI/SoftWire/Mathwork that they try to find a consense?

Didier

[BendrixBailey]

BRAVO!

That is a good idea. Why don

[JohnRH]

...

Does anybody know if there is already a user-group/community which want to stop all this bullshit, e.g. try to make pressure on NI/SoftWire/Mathwork that they try to find a consense?

...

Likely not. It seems like MCC and Mathworks would be willing to listen to such a group. I'm not sure NI would be quite as co-operative, although you never know. We really need some type of 'mediation' here or something along those lines. Any ideas? I would be willing to help.

We already have the atttention of Mr. Bailey at MCC. I know that some individuals at NI have been observing this thread with interest as well. Wether or not we could get the right people at NI to listen is what would determine the ultimate success or failure of such a group.

I wonder if we could get NI/MathWorks and MCC to all agree to face to face reasonable talks, mediated by people from industry? A little far out - but thought I'd present the idea out anyway.

John

[BendrixBailey]

Too late for that.

http://biz.yahoo.com/bw/040907/75859_1.html

Now we will see if NI does block further sales of Simulink...

[Michael Aivaliotis]

Seeing is that web documents come and go. I'm including the entire press release in this post:

Court of Appeals Upholds Patent Infringement Judgment against The MathWorks, Inc.

Tuesday September 7, 2:02 pm ET

Decision Affirms Jury Verdict in Favor of National Instruments Finding Infringement by Simulink and Related Products

AUSTIN, Texas--(BUSINESS WIRE)--Sept. 7, 2004-- National Instruments (Nasdaq:NATI - News) today announced that the United States Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit has affirmed the judgment of infringement of three National Instruments patents by Massachusetts-based The MathWorks, Inc. The patents, U.S. Patent Nos. 4,901,221; 4,914,568; and 5,301,336, relate to National Instruments LabVIEW software, which contains major innovations in programming design tools. A fourth patent, No. 5,291,587, was found valid but not infringed.

In June 2003, the Honorable T. John Ward of the District Court for the Eastern District of Texas (Marshall Division) upheld the jury's January 2003 verdict finding validity and infringement of National Instruments' patents, and issued an order forbidding the sale of The MathWorks Simulink software product once any appeal has been disposed of in favor of National Instruments.

"We are pleased that the Court of Appeals affirmed the verdict," said David Hugley, NI vice president and general counsel. "LabVIEW has had a revolutionary impact on scientists and engineers with its innovative virtual instrumentation approach. We have invested heavily in the intellectual property in LabVIEW and the Court of Appeals ruling further protects and validates our intellectual property."

National Instruments continues to offer the LabVIEW Simulation Interface Toolkit, which adds the LabVIEW user interface to the Simulink environment. With the LabVIEW Simulation Interface Toolkit, design engineers can use LabVIEW-based user interfaces to intuitively control and view data within their control models. The toolkit gives The MathWorks customers a licensed manner to control and view Simulink data under these National Instruments patents.

The final royalty damages will be recorded in the financial statements of the company after the issuance of the Court of Appeals written mandate and the release of the escrow. The company anticipates using a significant portion of the proceeds to fund academic research and classroom projects for improving science, technology, engineering and mathematics education.

About National Instruments

National Instruments (www.ni.com) is a technology pioneer and leader in virtual instrumentation -- a revolutionary concept that has changed the way engineers and scientists approach measurement and automation. Leveraging the PC and its related technologies, virtual instrumentation increases productivity and lowers costs through easy-to-integrate software, such as the NI LabVIEW graphical development environment, and modular hardware, such as PXI modules for data acquisition, instrument control and machine vision. Headquartered in Austin, Texas, NI has more than 3,100 employees and direct operations in 41 countries. In 2003, the company sold products to more than 25,000 companies in 90 countries. For the past five years, FORTUNE magazine named NI one of the 100 best companies to work for in America.

Readers may obtain investment information from the company's investor relations department by calling 512-683-5090, by sending e-mail to nati@ni.com or by visiting www.ni.com/nati.

LabVIEW, National Instruments, NI and ni.com are trademarks of National Instruments. Simulink and The MathWorks are registered trademarks of The MathWorks, Inc. Other product and company names listed are trademarks or trade names of their respective companies.

Contact:

    National Instruments, Austin

    Editor Contact:

    Jennifer Howard-Brown, 512-683-8713

Source: National Instruments

[frugalb]

In the time I was coach of a dozen pupils in gymnastic I alway had to repeat that I really don't care who started, but there have to be alway TWO parties for a fight! .. and both got punished...

1428[/snapback]

When you offer no option for the innocent or opressed to defend themselves, then fairness is lost and bullies win.

Do you honestly believe that there is no such thing as an innocent victim?

"She was asking for it"

"He should have left the lights on"

"They shouldn't have been there at that time"

Is it always the victims fault?

Or are you trying to push the "turn the other cheek" doctrine? Just keep in mind that it got him killed in the end...

On a positive note: This is an excellent thread, thanks for starting it and thanks for this lavausergroup!