Vonage & AT&T Announce Their Legal Settlement > How is it that...

reply to Austinloop

Re: How is it that...

What you are opposing is currently legal, so whether or not it is moral is not the question, just whether it is legal or not is the only issue. (And a money maker for the lawyers)

This isn't about right and wrong. This is about what's good and bad for our economy. If you want to call that right & wrong, fine but morality has nothing to do with it.

Our patent law is designed to promote invention by awarding inventors temporary monopolies over that which they invent. The hope is that a country with strong patent policies makes the best places for R&D. R&D is usually accompanied by engineering facilities, laboratories and high skilled labor positions. Generally high skill = high pay.

What I'm questioning is whether or not patents should be granted for certain derivative works. I think it's great to award folks for true invention but some of the derivative patents being awarded seem obvious and ridiculous.

Look at the Eolas patent regarding adding "plug-ins" to web browsers. In my opinion, the patent doesn't invent anything. It's simply a natural derivative of adding content to the existing HTML specification. I support my assertion by Microsoft's ease of getting around the patent. Apparently the patent involves "automatic" activation of "plug-in" content within the initial HTML stream. By having end users click on the content to activate it, the automatic clause is voided and so is the Eolas claim. Likewise, if the web page modifies itself with script after the initial HTML stream is closed, the claim is voided.

I guess I see the difference like this: Patenting a drug formula that lowers cholesterol in patients is good. Patenting the idea of lowering cholesterol by taking a daily drug is bad.

I have no idea what's involved in the AT&T and Vonage suit but in the Verizon suit, I recall two violations. (There were three but I don't remember the third.) The first involved interaction between VOIP services and voice mail. Another involved VOIP WiFi phones. I don't know the exact specifics of Verizon's suit but on the surface, using VOIP with voice mail seems like a natural derivative and not invention. Using VOIP with a WiFi connection also seems like a natural derivative and not invention.

reply to rradina

reply to rradina

I agree. It's probably not derivative but apparently our patent office thought it was OK to patent some kind of VOIP technology with WiFi because that was one of Verizon's complaints.

reply to Ulmo
BTW -- I just did some research regarding what the AT&T patent violation is. AT&T claims Vonage violated a patent it holds pertaining to using standard telephone equipment with VOIP.

There could be more to it than this but on the surface, I call rat. The invention is VOIP, not using a standard telephone with VOIP. This is the kind of bullshit that needs to stop.

I might feel different if it was the other way around (little guy owning a patent that makes AT&T pay) but that's not fair. However, we need to foster a competitive landscape and that seems increasingly difficult when mega-corporations spend their efforts patenting ideas rather than bringing them to market. From AT&T's perspective, I'm certain that this is by design to protect their market position. They want to have a finger on anything that creates competition for their cash cow. That's certainly in the best interest of their investors but I'm not certain it's in the best interest for the rest of the country. We need more competition, not less. And it would have certainly been possible for ILECs to lower their prices and run Vonage out of business but that's a double-edged sword. As regulated monopolies, if they suddenly were able to reduce the price of their product, public service commissions everywhere would have immediately investigated whether or not ILECs inflating their costs to justify their rates. I'm not certain that would be a good outcome for the company or investors.

reply to Ulmo
More research -- a good link that discusses the specific Verizon suit and the patents involved. All seem like utter bullshit to me. As a regulated monopoly, I think it's hard to believe that we allowed Verizon to hold patents like these.

»ipurbia.com/2007/03/verizon-pate···sis.html

I recently read that Microsoft is trying hard to compete with Adobe in the interactive web page space. Adobe has Flash, that's on almost every browser, and Microsoft has SilverLight. The problem is SilverLight is not everywhere and requires users to download and install it. Simple enough but what would make someone want to do that? Moreover, what would make a content provider want to write for SiverLight when most folks don't already have it on their computers? A potential solution is for Microsoft to include it in the next browser upgrade. This would give it immediate market position since all Windows computers would be SilverLight capable. However, most predict Microsoft won't do this because of their market position. Their recent EU anti-competitive rulings would certainly be enhanced if they were to do this.

How can this happen to Microsoft when Verizon is able to patent two cans with a string because it transmits voice from point a to point b?

One of the Verizon patents involves real-time billing. I find it hard to believe that a real-time billing process would provide any significant competitive advantage. It's more likely that Verizon was merely protecting itself.

I guess that's that real chess match being played. I have read that many companies consider patents like nuclear that guarantee mutual destruction. That is, you might be violating a patent but because the patent holder is violating your patent, no weapons are fired because it's pointless.