[Asterisk-biz] Google sued over VoIP LCR patent

[trixter aka Bret McDanel]

On Wed, 2006-01-04 at 08:28 +0100, Florian Overkamp wrote:
> Hi guys,
> 
> Ed Guy wrote:
> 
>  > However,  searching further, I found ( 
> http://271patent.blogspot.com/2005/12/rates-technology-inc.html )
>  > that Patents 5,425,085 
> <http://patft.uspto.gov/netacgi/nph-Parser?Sect1=PTO1&Sect2=HITOFF&amp;amp;amp;amp;amp;amp;d=PALL&p=1&u=/netahtml/srchnum.htm&r=1&amp;amp;amp;amp;amp;amp;f=G&l=50&s1=5425085.WKU.&OS=PN/5425085&RS=PN/5425085> 
>   (* http://tinyurl.com/9dfak )* and 5,519,769 
> <http://patft.uspto.gov/netacgi/nph-Parser?Sect1=PTO1&Sect2=HITOFF&amp;amp;amp;amp;amp;d=PALL&p=1&u=/netahtml/srchnum.htm&r=1&amp;amp;amp;amp;amp;f=G&l=50&s1=5519769.WKU.&OS=PN/5519769&RS=PN/5519769>. 
> (* http://tinyurl.com/c99mf )* are
>  > the subject of the suit.
>  >
>  > If you can stand to read through the various claims, you can easily 
> draw your
>  > own conclusion and understand why google is defending their position.
> 
> 
> Yup, agreed. If I'm reading this correctly, key issues are:
> 
> - Pat. 5,425,085 is about a box that is connected between phone and 
> phoneline and which does carrier select dialling (prefix dialling)
This may or may not require that cylindrical box.  I havent read the
whole patent, but if a single claim is violated (and most referenceclaim
one some reference a claim that references claim one ...) then they
might be able to broaden it on a single claim.  Again I havent read the
whole thing so I cant say specifically if this is the case.


> - Pat. 5,519,769 is about a database that holds rating information
> 
This one may be a little more generic, and may be more applicable.  I
havent read this at all so I cant say.


The USPTO has liked to issue patens for anything and let the courts
decide if 1. the patent is valid (ie they cant be overly generic to
cover everything) 2. there is not prior art (lcr might have that
argument in itself) and other such goodies.

This has been a problem for about 20 years, maybe as far as 30...


> But unfortunately, US patent laws seem to be highly subjective to the 
> judge in session. So who knows...
> 

Well its more the jury that decides the case, just remember juries are
comprised of people who arent smart enough to get out of jury duty :P

A link to the actual complaint may be a little better to review the
specific claims (if its not alledged in the complaint its hard to get it
into court later).  Odds are its in PACER, although my access to that
lapsed and I havent renewed yet (it takes 6 weeks so by the time I did
it wont be that relevant).


-- 
Trixter http://www.0xdecafbad.com     Bret McDanel
UK +44 870 340 4605   Germany +49 801 777 555 3402
US +1 360 207 0479 or +1 516 687 5200
FreeWorldDialup: 635378
http://www.sacaug.org/ Sacramento Asterisk Users Group
-------------- next part --------------
A non-text attachment was scrubbed...
Name: not available
Type: application/pgp-signature
Size: 189 bytes
Desc: This is a digitally signed message part
Url : http://lists.digium.com/pipermail/asterisk-biz/attachments/20060104/69b8fcea/attachment.pgp