VoIP? Yeah, That's All Patented Up Too...
from the well,-this-should-be-fun dept
In any area that's getting lots of attention, you can expect patent battles to follow. It looks like VoIP may be the next hot area where lots of money will now go to patent lawyers, instead of back into actual innovation. Google is already facing a VoIP patent related lawsuit, and it looks like other cases are on the way. A German telco named Teles is now claiming that it owns patents on switching between a traditional phone line and a VoIP phone line -- and therefore is suing Nokia, who just introduced a UMA phone designed to offer both VoIP and cellular voice over the same device. Of course, as we discussed earlier this week, there are an awful lot of those converged fixed/mobile offerings coming to market, so expect this German company to be suing plenty of others in fairly short order. In fact, the company has hired not one, but three separate law firms in Washington DC to start going after just about everyone. Hurray for innovation. Meanwhile, we've discussed in great detail the incredibly odd history of theGlobe.com -- dot com poster child (where it was never clear what they actually did) to huge IPO poster child to nothing to gaming magazine to VoIP play, each with a ridiculous level of hype. However, now the firm has gleefully announced that it too has a patent. This one is for (I kid you not) an internet telephony network and methods for using the same. The details suggest that this patent covers the concept of mapping phone numbers to IP addresses. Seriously. First of all, there's got to be prior art on this one, and even if there isn't how could you possibly get a patent on an idea as obvious as mapping IP addresses to phone numbers? Since the rumors are that the company is struggling financially, it wouldn't be much of a surprise to see its latest business model morph once again to try to leverage this patent into millions of non-innovation dollars.
Thank you for reading this Techdirt post. With so many things competing for everyone’s attention these days, we really appreciate you giving us your time. We work hard every day to put quality content out there for our community.
Techdirt is one of the few remaining truly independent media outlets. We do not have a giant corporation behind us, and we rely heavily on our community to support us, in an age when advertisers are increasingly uninterested in sponsoring small, independent sites — especially a site like ours that is unwilling to pull punches in its reporting and analysis.
While other websites have resorted to paywalls, registration requirements, and increasingly annoying/intrusive advertising, we have always kept Techdirt open and available to anyone. But in order to continue doing so, we need your support. We offer a variety of ways for our readers to support us, from direct donations to special subscriptions and cool merchandise — and every little bit helps. Thank you.
–The Techdirt Team
Reader Comments
Subscribe: RSS
View by: Time | Thread
a new idea for a better world
None of the money should be allowed into a personal or commercial bank account.
Anyone with me?
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: a new idea for a better world
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: a new idea for a better world
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: a new idea for a better world
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: a new idea for a better world
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: a new idea for a better world
And what the hell has charity got to do with anything?? Charities are a bigger waste of money than lawyers!
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: a new idea for a better world
is anyone with me? = does anyone agree?
good day...
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: a new idea for a better world
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
No Subject Given
And there are good charities out there like the Prince' Trust. Providing funding for start up companies, innovative ideas and development etc. Google it, 'tis good.
I think we should lock up all Lawyers. Oh, and do unmentionable things to them. Repeatedly.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
No Subject Given
YAARRR!
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
no prior art needed
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
No Subject Given
The solution is quite simple indeed:
PTO should spend a little more time on each patent application and corporations should think twice before willfully taking someone else's IP.
In order to instill a little more honesty and caution into those corporate buttheads, a simple introduction of a jail term for *willfull* stealing of IP from small entities, for example, would do the trick.
Right now those corporate fucktards don't risk anything at all - it's a provilidge of shareholders to bear all the risk...
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Bloody Hemmoroids Angry Dude!
AngryDude, your about as inflammatory as a hemmoroid, and a smuch intelligence as the butt-crack is on.
The idea of digitally sampling voice and sending it over the TCP/IP protocol is so obvious that it cannot possibly be patented. Besides, international patent law is difficult to enfore anyhow.
This is about equivalent to claiming to own a patent to "any method of sending digital audio over TCP/IP." Doesn't matter, because the case won't hold water.
Go order some Preparation V over IP.
[heeeheheheh.]
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Bloody Hemmoroids Angry Dude!
The idea is obvious but the implementation is not.
Much of VoIP patents (the good ones at least) address all the ennumerable and very difficult issues of how to achieve smooth reproduction of real time voice signal pumping it through some protocol (TCP/IP) which was originally designed without any thought that it might be eventually used for real-time voice communications.
Go back to school before speaking here...
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
patent holding
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: patent holding
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: patent holding
(and yes, that will eliminate a large percentage of lawsuits...)
In other words, those honest corporate folks from Intel, MS, HP etc waht to have a nice little patent system for their and only their needs, not for some garage-type inventors (well ,some of them like HP were started in a garage, but they long forgot about it...)
Don't you have a little of that substance called brain in your head to see it ?
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: patent holding
Don't you have a little of that substance called brain in your head to see it ?
Perhaps you could enlighten us all by pointing out what parts of that act are intended to kill off independent inventor rights?
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: patent holding
"Injunctive relief" provision is the killer...
It's already removed from the draft, otherwise it would autoimatically make all patents owned by small (non-manufacturing) inventors unenforcable.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: patent holding
It's already removed from the draft, otherwise it would autoimatically make all patents owned by small (non-manufacturing) inventors unenforcable.
That's a misleading statement at best, and you know it. Injunctions can be a serious problem, forcing an entire product to be pulled from the market, because one tiny part may have infringed on a patent accidentally and unintentionally.
It doesn't make patent unenforceable. Inventors could still win in court and be compensated for the use of the patent.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
sue for stifling
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: sue for stifling
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
No Subject Given
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: No Subject Given
This whole patent crap is just get down right silly.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
No Subject Given
What they need to do is rework how patents works. What was the original idea behind patents? To stop people from stealing YOUR idea(s). The key word here is YOUR not all. Lets say I create a VoIP system and patent it. That patent should ONLY cover my version of the idea. Anyone else should be able to create their own version as long as none of it was taken from mine.
This whole patent crap is just get down right silly.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: No Subject Given
This is actually not true, and it's part of the reason why we have so many problems today. The original idea behind patents was to encourage innovation (progress, useful sciences, blah blah...). It's not about protection at all, but getting the right incentives in place. At one time, that may have been being overly protective -- but the argument many of us are making is that's no longer the case.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
we're not worthy! we're not worthy!
jdw242: agreed, but who would be the judge of that?
Professor Highbrow: laughableicious insults, nice.
angry dude (again): fucktard? i will include that one in my T9 dictionary.
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- -------------------
First off, forgive me for my frivolous posts that brought nothing very helpful to the discussion at hand.
Secondly pcrh, considering i have no idea what-so-ever about patent law or lawyer jargon (wasn't that obvious?) your posts are the ones that make most sense to me. Concerning the statement, "proposed changes in the patent laws...that include such a provision that patent holders must produce or license their IP or risk losing some rights"....I thought this is how patent laws work. Maybe in another country than the US, patent laws are given on the condition that one develops the patented technology for use. Such as, if one doesn't come to adequate outcomes within four years, the patent is nulled and anyone is free to develop on those ideas.
For that matter, and in response to Anonymous coward's no subject post containing, "What was the original idea behind patents? To stop people from stealing YOUR idea(s)". I would add, "and to require that those holding the patents develop their idea(s) for practical use." Once again, if you show no constructive results, your patent is nulled and your ideas can be developed by someone else. I find this, with certain reservations on specific cases such as obstruction by a second party or uncontrollable circumstances (natural disasters, economical issues), to be quite fair.
Thirdly, and on a side note, there are too many different anonymous cowards. If there was one anonymous coward, ok, that would be one person with consistent ideas and attitude, but at this point it feels like we're dealing with a person suffering from multiple personality disorder. Cowards, it's really easy to create a name, remember it (if you can't use cookies) and reuse it. Please, for the sake of people/geekoids who like to respond to specific posts or insult someone by their name, fill in that space called "name" and make this world a better place. If I am completely disoriented and there is actually only one anonymous coward, let me tell you, sometimes you really are a zit-hole and other times, you are awesome, but still, you confuse me, so i hate you and i love you depending on the way the wind is blowing.
yours trully,
the unknown
In retrospect, all the above thinking isn't quite topic oriented, but i'm trying, and i spent a good deal of time writing this stuff, so given the effort involved, i deem myself worthy of posting it. Anyone disagree? Careful now, i will start quoting from something our forefathers wrote and you will have no other choice than to comply.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
No Subject Given
[ link to this | view in chronology ]