Electro960
join:2005-12-21
Doylestown, PA
| reply to ropeguru
Re: Here we go...
If someone stole your protected idea and then used it to take away "lots" of your customers, I'm sure you would sue as well. When I say "lots", thats lots enough to make a cable company brag at the 2008 CES that they're now the 4th largest phone company in the US. Thats a major accomplishment in such little time. |
|
ropeguru
Premium
join:2001-01-25
Bridgeport, WV
clubs:
 ·VOIPo
| said by Electro960  :If someone stole your protected idea and then used it to take away "lots" of your customers, I'm sure you would sue as well. When I say "lots", thats lots enough to make a cable company brag at the 2008 CES that they're now the 4th largest phone company in the US. Thats a major accomplishment in such little time. And I agree with the stealing part but that was NOT my point. If they are going to sue these competitors for infringement, then they should not be able to pick ONLY those that are competition. I cannot believe that none of the other ILECs that are non-competition aren't using these patents also in their VoIP products. All they are trying to do is run everyone else out of business that competes with them. When you get as big as Verizon and subsidized by the govt to get started and then allowed through regulation to become a monopoly, which they essentially are, then it is wrong. |
|
John Galt
Forward, March
Premium
join:2004-09-30
Happy Camp
 ·CenturyLink
| said by ropeguru :And I agree with the stealing part but that was NOT my point. If they are going to sue these competitors for infringement, then they should not be able to pick ONLY those that are competition. They will get around to them all...don't worry about THAT.
What was that comment that Robert Duvall made about the bulls in the movie "Colors"...?
Verizon is an old bull.
--
A is A |
|
knightmb
Everybody Lies
join:2003-12-01
Franklin, TN
·AT&T DSL Service
1 edit | reply to Electro960
said by Electro960 :If someone stole your protected idea and then used it to take away "lots" of your customers, I'm sure you would sue as well. When I say "lots", thats lots enough to make a cable company brag at the 2008 CES that they're now the 4th largest phone company in the US. Thats a major accomplishment in such little time. I agree that they shouldn't steal, but such a general idea never should have been patented to begin with. It's paramount to patenting seeing images in your web browser. Sure, you can patent a format format, say xyz for example. But don't go into lawsuit mode just because someone uses jpg files instead of yours to view images with. That's about sums up the whole VoIP fiasco we keep hearing about. They have a patent on something general, just not specific and yet they win in court due to non-technical judges and a jury that was composed of idiots in my opinion. That's why you get to pick out a jury anyway.  |
|
bogey780
join:2004-03-19
Here
| 'It's paramount to patenting seeing images in your web browser'
That's a bad analogy. The method for viewing images online had to be created by someone. Just like TCP/UDP/et all had to be created by someone somewhere. An annex to existing technology is still a creation. Now coming up with the idea that people could view images on a browser is to nebulous to patent. But coming up with a way for people to do as such is not. |
|
PDXPLT
join:2003-12-04
Banks, OR
| reply to knightmb
Well then, which specific claims in which specific patents should not have been allowed by the USPTO? You're saying that there is at least one claim that is a "general idea" and thus unpatentable. Care to tell us what it is; i.e, provide the exact text for it? |
|
russotto
join:2000-10-05
Collegeville, PA | Several of the essential claims cover using a new type of DNS record to indicate the gateway for a phone number. Since this is the exact sort of thing DNS is designed to do, it's neither novel nor non-obvious. |
|
knightmb
Everybody Lies
join:2003-12-01
Franklin, TN
·AT&T DSL Service
| reply to PDXPLT
said by PDXPLT :Well then, which specific claims in which specific patents should not have been allowed by the USPTO? You're saying that there is at least one claim that is a "general idea" and thus unpatentable. Care to tell us what it is; i.e, provide the exact text for it? All of these, the patent system shouldn't be able patenting obvious ideas of software. The patent system was invented well before "software" existed and as such companies are taking advantage of this. That's why patent reform is needed in the US patent system anyway, I can't to speak to the patent system in other countries.
»v3.espacenet.com/textdoc?DB=EPOD···S6430275
»v3.espacenet.com/textdoc?DB=EPOD···S6137869
»v3.espacenet.com/textdoc?DB=EPOD···S6104711
»v3.espacenet.com/textdoc?DB=EPOD···S6282574
»v3.espacenet.com/textdoc?DB=EPOD···S6298062
»v3.espacenet.com/textdoc?DB=EPOD···S6128304
»v3.espacenet.com/textdoc?DB=EPOD···S6359880 |
|
