more on Verizon's successful patent claims against Vonage

[David Farber <dave () farber net>]

Begin forwarded message:

From: Daniel Berninger <dan () danielberninger com>
Date: March 28, 2007 5:58:40 PM EDT
To: dave () farber net
Subject: more on Verizon's successful patent claims against Vonage
Reply-To: Daniel Berninger <dan () danielberninger com>

Dave,

For IP.  The post copied below (by Fred Goldstein - ionary.com) lists  
the
(so far) successful patent claims Verizon won against Vonage.

Verizon won on seven claims between three patents.  They started with
several hundred claims between seven patents.

The claims seem like a generic description of any communication via the
Internet.

If I was attempting to start a VoIP business today, I would have no idea
where Verizon's patents start and end.

It would be interesting if anyone on the IP list can point to the  
innovation
Verizon is protecting and Vonage is violating.

Dan

...................................................
Daniel Berninger
VP, Sr Analyst
Tier1 Research
www.tier1research.com
dan () tier1research com
202.250.3838


> > > > > > > > > > > > > >

http://www.lightreading.com/boards/message.asp?msg_id=143916

Author:  fgoldstein Number: 2  Rating:
Subject: Garbage patents Date: 03/27/07 01:47 PM
Rate This Post:
12345


Has anyone here actually looked at the patents? Apparently a jury is  
usually
not asked if the patents are any good, merely if they were infringed. So
total garbage gets this far, to be overturned on appeal. In this case  
the
jury did hold the patents valid; this is a bit like asking the  
janitor to
diagnose if you have cancer.

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 willfull" 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.


Yep, that's Vonage all right, supporting wireless and cordless phones  
with
HLRs! Dead ringer for parasitic broadband VoIP if you ask Mr. Patent  
Lawyer.

This whole sordid affair is a blot on the already-soiled reputation  
of the
USA's judicial system. I can barely imagine how Vonage mounted a  
competent
defense and lost on those claims. And those are the sum total of their
infringements.






-------------------------------------------
Archives: http://v2.listbox.com/member/archive/247/@now
Powered by Listbox: http://www.listbox.com