[Asterisk-Dev] VoIP SPAM, what's next ?

[Sunrise Ltd]

Bill Moran wrote:

> If they actually think they're going
> to get a patent, I have prior art!
> 
> I've been talking about spam filtering
> over VoIP for months! I could
> easily produce half a dozen witnesses
> who have discussed this with me
> this year.

Sorry to disappoint you, but discussing does not count as
prior art. You have to show that you have produced
something, be it a manuscript or a published paper/article
or a prototype.


Matt Riddell wrote:

> Say for example that (disconnected
> from the world) down here in New 
> Zealand I came up with a slightly
> better way of doing VOIP spam
> protection, yet it does some things
> the same way as the patent.

You could file a patent for the improvements, but your
invention would still be encumbered by the original
patent. So you will need their express consent to build
yours and they would need your express consent to improve
theirs (in any way anticipated by your patent's claims).

> So if you are sure that the
> QOVIA blocker is the one and
> only spam blocker of that type
> and that it will fulfil all your
> needs in the area, sure let them
> go with it.

That's not really the point. A patent is a bargain between
the public domain and an inventor. The public grants the
inventor a time limited monopoly in return for disclosure
and transfer into the public domain of his invention. It's
designed to be an incentive not to keep discoveries secret
and away from the public.

The only interest the public has (and by extension the
patent laws) is the enrichment of the public domain with
knowledge.

Therefore, whether or not the Qovia invention is universal
and highly efficient does not and should not matter. The
only thing that does and should matter is whether it
fulfils the requirements of patentability, which are ...

1) it must be novel, that is it must not be anticipated by
prior art (knowledge already in the public domain)

2) it must have an inventive step, be non-obvious.

Many patent applications today would fail test #1 already
if only the patent offices weren't so helplessly
overwhelmed with applications.

But there are more and more patent applications that
should fail test #2. They are made to look like
non-obvious by skillful patent attorneys, but in reality
you would find that if you put the problem they solve in
front of any person skilled in the art and they will come
up with the same kind of solution in no time whatsoever -
is there any better way to show that something is
obvious?!

That's where we should start putting the pressure on
politicians. If we appear anti-patent, anti-intellectual
property, we will be classified as communists and nobody
will listen to us any further, we'll get absolutely
nowhere.

On the other hand, if we start complaining about how
understaffed the patent offices are and how as a result
the patent examination end up to be in violation of the
law, granting patents that by law must not be granted,
then we do actually have a chance.

> btw, doesn't matter if it's GPL,
> you still have to pay me

Software based on patents cannot be GPL. The only
exception is the case in which the patent holders have
given blanket permission to everybody to use the patented
invention free of charge.

rgds
benjk

--
Sunrise Telephone Systems Ltd
9F Shibuya Daikyo Bldg., 1-13-5 Shibuya, Shibuya-ku, Tokyo, Japan

__________________________________________________
GANBARE! NIPPON!
Yahoo! JAPAN JOC OFFICIAL INTERNET PORTAL SITE
http://mail.ganbare-nippon.yahoo.co.jp/