On Wed, 28 Mar 2007 00:35:50 -0400, Barry Margolin
<barmar@alum.mit.edu> wrote,
In article <telecom26.85.9@telecom-digest.org>,
nospam.kd1s@cox.nospam.net wrote:
>> So it's the connection method is it? Far as I can recall, switches of
>> all sizes have been IP aware for quite some time now. My Vonage line
>> is in essence a VoIP phone connected to a real switch. Verizon and
>> that damned jury doesn't seem to understand that part.
> Have *you* read the patents in question? If not, how can you
> criticize their decision? You can't possibly know what the patents
> are really covering from the brief paragraph above.
Alright. Well, I did read the patent claims in question. What claims
were found to have been infringed?
"Minute Entry for proceedings held before Judge Claude M. Hilton: Jury
Trial cont'd on 3/8/2007. Appearances as previous. Jury question rec'd
3/7/07 addressed w/counsel. Jury reinstructed re: name translation and
given the definition of 'method comprising'. The jury returned to the
jury room to continue deliberations. The jury returned to the
courtroom at 2:50 w/a verdict finding infringement of claim 27 of the
'574 patent, claim 20 of the '711 patent and Claims 1, 6, 7, and 8 of
the '880 patent and finding that the infringement was not willful. The
jury did not find infringement of claims 1 & 2 of the '869 patent and
Claims 1 & 2 of the '275 patent. The jury found none of the claims at
issue in patents '574, '711, '869, '275, or '880 to be invalid. The
jury awarded pltfs damages in the amount of $58,000,000.00 and found
the reasonable royalty percentage to be 5.5%. Judgment to be entered
in accordance with the verdict. Pltfs motion for Permanent Injunction
to heard on 3/23/07 @ 10:00. (Court Reporter Linnell.) (tarm, )
(Entered: 03/08/2007)"
These were garbage claims in a set of garbage patents. Nothing IMHO
came even close to meeting the test of originality and
non-obviousness. But juries are not generally competent to make that
judgment; usually it's left to courts. The jury did rule in this
case, but then that's like asking the cook at your local Taco Bell to
peer-review a physics paper on quantum chromodynamics. It is
meaningless and really an exercise in stupidity.
On to specifics. Only a few claims actually were upheld. One was
claim 27 of the '527 patent (26 included for completeness):
26. A method comprising:
receiving a name translation request at a server coupled to a public
packet data network;
translating a name included in the request into a destination
telephone number associated with a name included in the request; and
transmitting a reply containing both the destination telephone number
and a packet data network address of a telephone gateway coupled
between the public packet data network and a telephone network
through the public packet data network to a calling device.
27. A method as in claim 26, wherein the address is an Internet
Protocol address.
Gee, that's not obvious, or prior art, is it? Boy that American
inventiveness sure worked hard for that one! How about the '711
patent, wherein only Claim 20 was found violated:
15. A method comprising:
receiving a name translation request at a server coupled to a public
packet data network;
executing a conditional analysis in response to the name translation
request;
if the conditional analysis produces a first result, translating a
name included in the name translation request into a first destination
address;
if the conditional analysis produces a second result, translating the
name included in the name translation request into a second
destination address; and
transmitting a response message containing the first or the second
destination address to a calling device for use in establishing
communication at least partially through the public packet data
network.
20. A method as in claim 15; wherein:
the first and second destination address includes a numeric Internet
Protocol address; and
the second destination address further includes information relating
to call routing via a public switched telephone network.
No, sirree, that doesn't look at all like DNS or MX records or
anything else invented before 1997!
Finally, the third upheld patent, the "not willful" violations of the
'880 patent, where only claims 1, 6, 7 and 8 were found violated:
1. A method comprising:
registering a wireless telephone terminal in a localized wireless
gateway system;
transmitting registration data identifying the gateway system from the
localized wireless gateway system to a home location register database
through a public packet data communication network;
receiving a request from a calling computer coupled to the public
packet data communication network for a call to the wireless telephone
terminal;
in response to the request, accessing the home location register
database and obtaining a packet data address for the localized
wireless gateway system;
using the address to set up a voice communication through the public
packet data communication network and the localized wireless gateway
system between the calling computer and the wireless telephone
terminal.
6. A method as in claim 1, wherein the public packet data
communication network is a packet switched network.
7. A method as in claim 6, wherein the packet switched network
comprises a system of interlinked data networks using TCP/IP protocol.
8. A method as in claim 7, wherein the system of interlinked data
networks comprises the Internet.
The '880 patent is about wireless phones, not central to Vonage at
all, so it's not clear how it is even relevant. But it basically
combines existing technologies, just waving "TCP/IP" over them as if
that made them new again, like your basic dotcom "business method"
patent rush of the 1990s.
In other words, Verizon is abusing the patent system in order to stamp
out competition. What else is new? Liars are liars.
[TELECOM Digest Editor's Note: It seems to me that a lot of these
'patent pirates' like Verizon, etc are going to pick over the entire
internet -- the hard work of _many_ netters over the years -- and
where they find some little unobtrusive thing which the earlier
builders had not bothered to patent way-back-when -- because the
internet was intended to be open architecture -- open to all -- now,
Verizon and who else is going to rush in trying to grab it up and
claim 'they were first'. Didn't I say, in 1987 or somewhere back in
those days that the men we recognize as our true 'founders' would have
been very well advised to clamp this thing down totally? Didn't I
say, sometime around 1993-95 that Tim Berners-Lee should be damned for
not tighting all the nuts and bolts on this web before the telcos were
able to beat him to it? Oh no, I was told, they are much too
anarchist-driven for anything like that. A bunch of college guys
trying to be (albiet benevolent) anarchists; and telco says you wanna
play that game, let's play it; but keep the benevolency to yourself.
And with their infinite supply of money and resources they (telco)
will indeed win and we will indeed lose. Not today, not this week; the
'death of the net' has not yet been scheduled. But you know where
things are going, I am sure. PAT]
Fred Goldstein (fgoldstein.SeeSigSpambait@wn2.wn.net)