Verizon VoIP Patents Legitimate?One analyst isn't so sure... ( old news - 01:36PM Tuesday Apr 17 2007) tags: legal · business · VoIPTipped by Rick  Over at GigaOM there is some interesting analysis that explores whether the Verizon VoIP patents cited in the case against Vonage are even valid to begin with. One analyst argues that the legitimacy of Verizon’s two key "name translation" patents (6,104,711 filed on March 6, 1997; 6,282,574-filed February 24, 2000) is in question: "The claims in both patents were anticipated by open standards assembled by the VoIP Forum in 1996 and published in January 1997 with the participation of members from Cisco Systems, Microsoft, IBM, Nortel, Intel, Motorola, Lucent, and Vocaltec Communications, among others. The work of the VoIP Forum, publication plans, and disclosure requirements were noted in a correspondence between the VoIP Forum and the ITU Telecommunications Standardization Sector. Verizon filed another patent application (6,298,062) in the same time period that does reference the Kahane-Petrack paper of January 1997." The site is awaiting some kind of response from Verizon.
Related:- FCC Doesn't Like Comcast's New Treatment of VoIP
- Comcast Denies Unfair VoIP Discrimination
- Verizon Can't Use Number Ports To Win Back Landline Customers
- Wednesday Evening Links
- Dallas FBI Raid About VoIP Scam, Not Wolverine
- Google Voice Ban Is Clear Network Neutrality Violation
- What Network Neutrality Is REALLY About
- AT&T: Google Is The Enemy Of Nuns
|
 
USPTOsucks
@cgocable.net | They've patented customer DBs too Wow. Someone finally read the patents. | |
|  | 
Goober
join:2000-12-17
Naperville, IL
 ·Comcast
·WOW Internet and C..
| 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. | |
| | |
USPTOsucks
@cgocable.net
| 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). | |
| | | |
Goober
join:2000-12-17
Naperville, IL
·Comcast
·WOW Internet and C..
| Re: They've patented customer DBs too said by USPTOsucks :
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).
Well, I guess we'll have to see what happens. Verizon holds issued patents, so there is a presumption of validity. Doesn't mean they'll win though.
I've written and prosecuted several hundreds of patents and have dealt with dozens of Examiners in the last 12-13 years. I don't find the Examiners overall (or the USPTO) to be arrogant at all. Unfortunately, I have to agree that the Examiners typically aren't very good.
I think being afraid of the USPTO versus the military is a little bit silly of a statement. But hey, whatever. | |
| | | 
SRFireside
join:2001-01-19
Houston, TX
| So what is your take on Verizon's claims? I don't expect you to rummage through the patents and all the details they hold, but looking at it from the outside what your thoughts? Are they trying to pull a fast one by sneaking by the open standards board like RAMBUS did a while back with their claim to SDRAM? | |
| | | |
Goober
join:2000-12-17
Naperville, IL
·Comcast
·WOW Internet and C..
1 edit | Re: They've patented customer DBs too Yours is a good point. While the RAMBUS case is a text-book example, I see this type of behavior still.
Unfortunately, I'd have to look more closely at the circumstances of this case, which I haven't done yet. So, I'm not very knowledgable.
One thing to note is that depending on the standards agreement, Verizon still may be in the clear. In certain cases, the standards group sets forth a specification, but it's up to the technology members to implement that in specific ways. So, the organization owns the spec, but each company owns its own patents on specific implementations.
Depending on how the agreement is written, the specific implementation by the patentee is subject to RAND (reasonable and non-discriminatory) licensing to the other members. For non-members, the patent holder can go after them with guns ablazing.
So, the other members of the consortium may very well have some type of RAND agreement and will be safe from Verizon's lawsuits. Non-members, watch out. | |
| | | | 
TechSponge
join:2001-05-14
Hillside, NJ
| Dont EVEN TRY that one! Rambus Innovated. They continue to Innovate. NDA's were signed. The others Copied. The Truth is out there. Look at who is settling, who is being fined heavily and who is going to Jail. Just like it will be when the insane patents are overthrown and VoIP is allowed to proceed fairly without pressure from a Monopolistic ILEC. | |
| | | | |
Goober
join:2000-12-17
Naperville, IL
·Comcast
·WOW Internet and C..
1 edit | Re: They've patented customer DBs too It's a matter of perspective. Rambus certainly did something that wasn't on the up and up in regards to the consortium relationship. It's not to say that they didn't/don't innovate.
I was a new engineer in Geoff Tate's organization at AMD back in 1989. He left briefly afterwards for what eventually became Rambus. But, I recall that he was an incredibly smart and savvy individual. The youngest EVP ever at AMD, if I recall correctly. So I agree that he and the organization are innovators. But, I also believe that Rambus got greedy and tried to freeze out the consortium members once Rambus realized that they had something good.
I'm involved and have been involved for many years in lots of standards based patenting activity and none of them have ever ended up the way Rambus did. I think that's very telling. | |
| | | | | |
TechSponge
join:2001-05-14
Hillside, NJ
| Re: They've patented customer DBs too I appreciate that, however, I find it more telling that The FTC is backpedaling and allowing them to collect Retro-Royalites from the few companies that have not been paying and are allowed to collect going forward on everything from SDRam forward. There is something wrong with having innovated, put everyone on notice that you intend to protect your innovations, watch those innovations merged into some industry standard via a consortium that you are invited to but denied the motion to present at, while everyone you have taught how to do what to do is incorporating your NDA protected Technology into an Industry standard.
That being said, I think this VoIP patent case is a bit different.
Thanks for the Comments Goober! Always nice to speak with someone that is familiar with what the issues and timeframes were. | |
| | | | | | |
Goober
join:2000-12-17
Naperville, IL
·Comcast
·WOW Internet and C..
| Re: They've patented customer DBs too I agree. It certainly is interesting that Rambus has been vidicated to a certain extent. I'm still not sure, though, what may have happened in the consortium.
If nothing else, events like the Rambus matter only enforce the notion that agreements between the parties and members of a consortium need to be really well though out and air-tight.
Isn't it amazing, though, how repercussions from certain actions just ripple over such a long time. | |
| | | | | | | |
TechSponge
join:2001-05-14
Hillside, NJ
| Re: They've patented customer DBs too Agreed. The Rules must be set out plain and clear beforehand. More than Amazing though.... Justice Delayed is Justice Denied. Justice will one day be served and I will be made whole and gain my sanity back. What a story indeed. Just like this VoIP patent story will be someday. | |
| | | | |
SRFireside
join:2001-01-19
Houston, TX
| They innovated with the RAMBUS memory technology. They were using bogus patent claims to sue companies for royalties involving SDRAM and possibly DDR RAM (I can't recall the latter). A company can be both an innovator and opportunistic con artists at the same time. | |
| | RadioDoc
58ef2c0
Premium,ExMod 2000-03
join:2000-05-11 | Wow. A Canadian complaining about US Patent process.
--
Toolmaster of La Grange. | |
| | |
Goober
join:2000-12-17
Naperville, IL
1 edit | 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. | |
| | | | RadioDoc
58ef2c0
Premium,ExMod 2000-03
join:2000-05-11 | Re: They've patented customer DBs too  | |
| | | |
USPTOsucks
@cgocable.net | 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  . | |
| | | | | | | | | | | | | 
Dude111
An Awesome Dude
Premium
join:2003-08-04
USA | quote:
Wow. Someone finally read the patents.
Only because they are being called on it i think.... | |
| 
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 | |
| | 
Rick
Premium,MVM
join:2001-02-06
Waterbury, CT
clubs: 
| 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! | |
| 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. | |
| | 
GOLFnSUN
Enjoy the sun
Premium
join:2002-03-03
Avalon, NJ
 ·Sprint Mobile Broa..
·Comcast
| 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 | |
| | |
Rick
Premium,MVM
join:2001-02-06
Waterbury, CT
clubs:
| Re: Answer ?? said by GOLFnSUN :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! | |
| | | | | | | | | RadioDoc
58ef2c0
Premium,ExMod 2000-03
join:2000-05-11 | Re: Answer ?? Especially not to some pundit cave like GigaOm...
--
Toolmaster of La Grange. | |
| | | | | | | | | | | Ahrenl
join:2004-10-26
North Andover, MA
 ·Verizon FIOS
| Re: Answer ?? 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. | |
| | | | | | |
Rick
Premium,MVM
join:2001-02-06
Waterbury, CT
clubs:
| Re: Answer ?? Then, let them say their argument has no merit.
Again, it's up to verizon whether or not to respond.
But, the writer of the referenced article and BBR have every right to question what has been outlined now in that article and in fact, should question it.
The story makes a compelling case as to why Verizons patents are suspect.
And lastly, hopefully next time you'll think twice about calling people idiot's around here just because you disagree with them.
Reasonable people can disagree without lowering yourself to name calling.
--
The Coyote captured the RR! Roadrunner Rick is now Comcastic! | |
| | | | | | | | | | | | | | | Ahrenl
join:2004-10-26
North Andover, MA
·Verizon FIOS
| Re: Answer ?? Yes, I thought later of changing it to ignorant, but I was already on the train on the way home.
It wasn't a disagreement however, he stated he couldn't see how "it would jeopardize Verizons lawsuit". There is NO way it could help them at all, the only thing that could be accomplished by responding is 1. Nothing 2. Harm. With #2 being much more likely, as sending a response to an obviously hostile respondant just begs for for it to be paraphrased out of context, or misquoted.
As for the question of right to ask, everyone always has that. Whether they have an expectation of response goes back to my opinion on their level of intelligence.
Again, you don't even need a compelling case to find Verizon's patents suspect. They're total rubbish. I'm going to go patent all their processes but "with pzzaz". Then I'm going to sue Verizon for delivering service with too much pzzaz. If only I had the legal budget.. | |
| | | | | 
Jason Levine
Premium
join:2001-07-13
USA
| I agree. The only time I can remember a major company commenting (in more than a passing, generic manner) on pending legislation was (and still is) during the SCO-IBM lawsuit. SCO went to everyone they could proclaiming how their code was in Linux and therefore they owned Linux and everyone who used Linux owed them money. They bashed Linux and Linux users left and right in the press. And all the time they ran their mouth off, IBM stayed silent, saving their arguments for the courtroom. And guess who's winning that battle.
If Verizon made any comments, the best they could hope for would be a slight improvement in public opinion of them. However, they might say something which could come back to haunt them in a very bad way. Either way, it just doesn't pay for Verizon to answer the request. | |
| | | | xsiddalx
join:2005-03-11
Chicago, IL
 ·AT&T Yahoo
| said by Rick :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. It's not a stupid request. I wouldn't expect an answer from VZ though Then again, how is VZ creating problems for Vonage? Aren't the problems being caused by the courts?
If you are worried about your service being cut off from a simple law suit, you are putting too much emphasis on your vonage service (my opinion, no insult intended).
said by Rick :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. From what I recall, the patents were acquired when VZ bought out MCI. Then again, I recall IBM suing over a "gif" patent at one time, long after gif was a standard embedded image in web pages. If VZ has nothing, it will go the same way as IBMs attempt to monetize gifs. Then again, hyperlinking existed well before the www or lynx and gopher for that matter. Once money is being made, patent holders start paying more attention.
said by Rick :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. By they are you referring to two friends who are "bloggers" versus folks on this web site that merely "post"? Man I miss the days of usenet and email lists without ads on the bottom and restrictions...but we are where we are.
said by Rick :But the questions should now be asked in light of this article coming to light. Questions should always be asked. Why wait for someone else's light? | |
| | | |
SRFireside
join:2001-01-19
Houston, TX
| Verizon will not respond and if the site truly expects a response they are kidding themselves (that's not to say they really don't expect any response). All I care about is if these claims actually get investigates and pursued diligently. If Verizon is in the wrong it needs to come out now while this case is still in the court system. | |
| | | | | | | Foxbat121
join:2001-04-25
Herndon, VA
| Re: Answer ?? said by KrK :said by GOLFnSUN :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. | |
| | | | | IanR
join:2001-03-22
Madison, NJ | Re: Answer ?? 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........ | |
| 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. | |
| 
batterup
I Can Not Tell A Lie.
Premium
join:2003-02-06
Netcong, NJ
clubs:
1 edit | I have a theory. My theory is theories are crap.
quote:
The site is awaiting some kind of response from Verizon.
Why doesn't that *site* run broadband to the outhouses of America instead of wasting bandwidth? | |
| 
GlennAllen
join:2002-11-17
Richmond, VA | News flash! US PTO to merge with CRB; new TLA: POS. (Now their shared nickname will finally match their acronym... oh, joy.)
--
Wherever you go, there you are. | |
| 
BillRoland
Premium
join:2001-01-21
Ocala, FL
clubs:
·Cox HSI
| Reality Reality check: It doesn't matter what GigaOM or DSLR "experts" think about the patent, it only matters what the courts decide. I'm not saying I agree with the interpretation, but all these "THEY'RE WRONG THEY'RE WRONG" and "OMG they're so stupid" posts are really amusing.
--
"Don't steal. The government hates competition." | |
|
phoneboy2
@shawcable.net
| Sue the bastards! The very first post still says it all. People are ACTUALLY reading the patents now. Now all we need is a competent court with a competent judge to actually read the patents and throw this stupid thing out.
Then and only then can Vonage sue for damages. I would not be suprised to see Cisco, Nortel etc. jump in and sue Verizon as well. Ah, wouldn't that be lovely! | |
| | xsiddalx
join:2005-03-11
Chicago, IL
·AT&T Yahoo
| Re: Sue the bastards! said by phoneboy2 :
The very first post still says it all. People are ACTUALLY reading the patents now. Now all we need is a competent court with a competent judge to actually read the patents and throw this stupid thing out.
Then and only then can Vonage sue for damages. I would not be suprised to see Cisco, Nortel etc. jump in and sue Verizon as well. Ah, wouldn't that be lovely!
Why would any of the above sue VZ (a solvent customer)?
Then again, none of the above are in the same space as VZ or Vonage. Heck, it never ceases to amaze me what the mothership (Bell System) was involved in only to get in their own way of marketing...I guess we will see. There is always more than one way to skin a cat...or evade US law for that matter | |
| | | |
|
|
