knightmb
Everybody Lies
join:2003-12-01
Franklin, TN
 ·AT&T DSL Service
| reply to PDXPLT
Re: Here we go...
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 |
|
russotto
join:2000-10-05
Collegeville, PA | reply to PDXPLT
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. |
|
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? |
|
