USPTOsucks
@cgocable.net | They've patented customer DBs too
Wow. Someone finally read the patents. |
|
cdru
Go Colts
Premium,MVM
join:2003-05-14
Fort Wayne, IN | Since when
Since when does prior art stop a patent lawsuit. 
--
Go Colts |
|
JohnA
Premium
join:2003-09-16
Pittsburgh, PA | Answer ??
The site is awaiting some kind of response from Verizon. You're kidding, right?
You really don't expect Verizon to talk to you about an ongoing suit. |
|
Goober
Premium
join:2000-12-17
Naperville, IL
 ·Comcast
·WOW Internet and C..
| reply to USPTOsucks
Re: They've patented customer DBs too
If you've never been involved in patent litigation, let me tell you that these patents get read and analyzed a thousand times over from the moment a lawsuit seems to be looming on the horizon. Of course, during those countless readings and searches, new things come to light. Or old things being seen in a new light. |
|
RadioDoc
58ef2c0
Premium,ExMod 2000-03
join:2000-05-11 | reply to USPTOsucks
Wow. A Canadian complaining about US Patent process.
--
Toolmaster of La Grange. |
|
Rick
Premium,MVM
join:2001-02-06
Waterbury, CT
clubs: 
| reply to cdru
Re: Since when
Based on the story here is the chronology of the patents.
At a VOIP forum open source meeting in 1996, the technology was reportedly presented and discussed for the name translation technology.
In January 1997, some of this was also formally published in an independent document.
In MARCH 1997, Verizon patents it.
This year, Verizon is suing Vonage, claiming it's their patented technology.
LOL. If this story is accurate, it sounds more like Verizon stole it themselves!
This one should be VERY interesting to follow.
--
The Coyote captured the RR! Roadrunner Rick is now Comcastic! |
|
Goober
Premium
join:2000-12-17
Naperville, IL
1 edit | reply to RadioDoc
Re: They've patented customer DBs too
lol. Why not? It's not like Canada has a real (or maybe significant) patent system. I think the last time I filed a patent in Canada was because my secretary type CA instead of CN (China) on the form and I didn't notice it. |
|
TKJunkMail
Enjoy the sun
Premium
join:2002-03-03
Avalon, NJ
 ·Sprint Mobile Broa..
·Comcast
| reply to JohnA
Re: Answer ??
said by JohnA  : The site is awaiting some kind of response from Verizon. You're kidding, right? You really don't expect Verizon to talk to you about an ongoing suit. Verizon will ignore this stupid request.
--
--
My BLOG
My Web Page |
|
RadioDoc
58ef2c0
Premium,ExMod 2000-03
join:2000-05-11 | reply to Goober
Re: They've patented customer DBs too
 |
|
Rick
Premium,MVM
join:2001-02-06
Waterbury, CT
clubs:
| reply to TKJunkMail
Re: Answer ??
said by TKJunkMail :said by JohnA : The site is awaiting some kind of response from Verizon. You're kidding, right? You really don't expect Verizon to talk to you about an ongoing suit. Verizon will ignore this stupid request. Why is this a stupid request? Verizon is creating a lot of problems for Vonage and in turn, we customers right down to even having us wonder whether the court will be having our service shut off.
If Verizon did take others technology and then pass it off as their own and are now creating all these problems, I for one think they have some real explaining to do.
I don't know what they did or didn't do and am not personally accusing them of anything. I just happened across this story though and it's they who are raising these questions.
They have a right to ask questions as does BBR.
Whether Verizon chooses to answer is up to them.
But the questions should now be asked in light of this article coming to light.
--
The Coyote captured the RR! Roadrunner Rick is now Comcastic! |
|
TKJunkMail
Enjoy the sun
Premium
join:2002-03-03
Avalon, NJ
·Sprint Mobile Broa..
·Comcast
| It is a stupid request because the case is in court. Verizon isn't going to answer anything until the court case is over.
--
--
My BLOG
My Web Page |
|
RadioDoc
58ef2c0
Premium,ExMod 2000-03
join:2000-05-11 | Especially not to some pundit cave like GigaOm...
--
Toolmaster of La Grange. |
|
USPTOsucks
@cgocable.net
| reply to Goober
Re: They've patented customer DBs too
I hold four patents in the electrical engineering and manufacturing fields. Two are currently providing me with a very modest income. I have signed over another dozen or so to my various employers. Patent applications and documentation is second nature to me (the technical side, I leave the word games to weasels lawyers).
The majority of these Verizon patents, from a superficial technical review of their content, are outrageously generic descriptions of common business and engineering practices...before, during, and after application.
I fear the USPTO (and by extension, WIPO) more than the US Army, Navy, and Air Force combined. The level of arrogance coupled with exemplary stupidity and ineptitude boggles the mind (and destroys the wallet). |
|
KrK
Heavy Artillery For The Little Guy
Premium
join:2000-01-17
Tulsa, OK
 ·AT&T Yahoo
·AT&T DSL Service
·Cox HSI
| reply to TKJunkMail
Re: Answer ??
said by TKJunkMail :Verizon will ignore this stupid request. While I don't doubt Verizon will ignore it, I don't see what makes it stupid..... Sounds like someone has done some research and is calling "BS" to Verizon's Patents.
This kind of reminds me of the RAMBUS memory patent debacle.
--
"Regulatory capitalism is when companies invest in lawyers, lobbyists, and politicians, instead of plant, people, and customer service." - former FCC Chairman William Kennard (A real FCC Chairman, unlike the current Corporate Spokesperson in the job!) |
|
USPTOsucks
@cgocable.net | reply to Goober
Re: They've patented customer DBs too
That's okay. I can handle the criticism. Besides, your patent database is great for royalty-free, generic drug formulas if your willing to dig through all the cruft  . |
|
Foxbat121
join:2001-04-25
Herndon, VA
| reply to KrK
Re: Answer ??
said by KrK :said by TKJunkMail :Verizon will ignore this stupid request. While I don't doubt Verizon will ignore it, I don't see what makes it stupid..... Sounds like someone has done some research and is calling "BS" to Verizon's Patents. This kind of reminds me of the RAMBUS memory patent debacle. If Vonage's lawyer is worth anything and this thing is even remotely true, they should be on the way to the court right now to file a count suit to invalidate Verizon's patents. Verizon isn't that stupid enough to make any comment on this upcoming law suit. |
|
Rick
Premium,MVM
join:2001-02-06
Waterbury, CT
clubs:
| reply to TKJunkMail
Like I said, whether they answer is up to them.
But these are very serious allegations now being alleged against them. Verizon has caused a lot of hurt to Vonage, it's shareholders and we customers.
If, and I say IF it's proven that these were patents obtained off of someone elses work, then Verizon just might be in a world of hurt themselves over this I think.
I don't see how it would jeopardize Verizons lawsuit to come out with a statement regarding this.
If they didn't take this voip forums work, then what's the harm in them saying that? It should also be noted in that story they talk about another patent where Verizon even NOTED that document existed. That proves that they even knew about this.
Again, the story is now out there for Verizon to respond to. Or not respond to. I'm not sure that I'd be counting Vonage out just yet though given what is being said now in that story.
--
The Coyote captured the RR! Roadrunner Rick is now Comcastic! |
|
IanR
join:2001-03-22
Madison, NJ | reply to Foxbat121
I dunno about you but I don't have much confidence in Vonage's Lawyers. Thus far Verizon's Lawyers and the Judge have trampled all over them without seemingly much of a protest.
Let's here it from Vonage's Lawyers........ |
|
Ahrenl
join:2004-10-26
North Andover, MA
 ·Verizon FIOS
| reply to Rick
said by Rick :..I don't see how it would jeopardize Verizons lawsuit to come out with a statement regarding this... You're an idiot then. The ONLY thing Verizon should say, if anything, about any comment questioning the viability of ANYTHING in their IP portfolio is with a verbal response of "Their argument has no merit" {end statement}.
Unless the request is sent by a judge or opposing counsel it should be ignored, as any response can be picked apart and used against you later.
If Vonage didn't bring this up in their case, or their appeals case, they need to find some new lawyers. Frankly I think it's a bogus patent anyway. Taking a process and adding the words "over the internet" to it does not make it a new idea, that can be patented. |
|
russotto
join:2000-10-05
Collegeville, PA
| I didn't think there was any question
Of course the patents are crap. That's almost given with todays USPTO.
Claim 27 of the '574 patent covers looking up a name and receiving back a phone number and an IP address of an internet-to-PSTN gateway.
Clain 20 of the '711 patent looks suspiciously similar to a DNS CNAME lookup, except that you get unspecified "phone call routing information" as well.
The first four paragraphs of Claim 1 of the '880 patent are ridiculously broad; they'd cover any dynamic DNS system where the machines were wireless. The last paragraph adds the "on the phone system" clause.
The first two patents are obvious crap to anyone "skilled in the art", or even "slightly clueful". Defining a new DNS record type for a PSTN-to-IP gateway (which would be one possible implementation of the those patents) is NOT patentworthy. |
|
